Dems Hate Oreos....does Party Trump Race?
 

Not to bore everyone with state and local politics, but I found the following to be quite interesting. Actually, "disturbing" is a better word, yet the behavior outlined in the article below is being defended by Democrat leaders.

Get it? Black on the outside, white on the...........nevermind.

Sickening.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro...054r_page2.htm

Yeah, it's always amusing to me how just because someone doesn't buy into the black voting plantation mentality they are labeled an "Uncle Tom".

So, uh...."Black Democrats" say there is nothing wrong with this? Oh, wait. You mean "The Black Democrats" in this article are representative of all black democrats. Just like Ann Coulter is representative of all conservatives, right?

Give me a break.

Please don't post Washington Times propaganda. It destroys any credibility you might have.

Ah the Rev. Moon. How many GOP blind followers will fall into following that man?

Again as posted numerous times, why would I trust ANYTHING that comes from a paper where the owner has given nuclear subs and millions upon millions of dollars to N. Korea's leaders? Let alone claim himself to be what was it....... grand ruler of the universe?

Ann Coulter? What does she have to do with the price of tea in China? AC is an OpEd writer, not an elected official. Who cares what she says? Don't hijack this into an Ann Coulter/Michael Moore thread please. At the very least, RTFA.

Is that the same as GOPers believing that if you are rich and a Democrat then you are a traitor and don't deserve the money you have?

Or that if you have certain social and political beliefs and you are a white male, you are a communist who doesn't deserve to live in the USA?

Just wondering, because there are certain people in this forum who have posted such things in response to my posts.

Just like you must be a stupid bible thumping bumpkin ignoramus if you didn't vote for John Kerry???

Your concept of reality is highly warped if you think any of the aforementioned white people get it nearly as bad as a black republican.

I hoped I was here before the "Washington Times Sux" crowd arrived, but apparently not.

As someone who lives in Maryland please note that everything said in that article is true. Just because it comes from the Washignton Times doesn't make it less so (especially with some of the crap being passed as legitamite sources in other threads).

The Democrats, of all kinds, in this state fear Michael Steele because he is a successful black man who is also a Republican. It is also embarressing to them that his is the highest-ranked African-American in the history of state politics, and it took a Republican governer to make it happen.

It is an absolute travisty that not only does the Democratic Party have to resolve itself to such slander and libel in order to defeat this man, but that based on my experiance in this state there is nothing to show that the majority of the African-American community in the state will do anything other then buy it.

I see lots of straw men being burned.

Is the article true or not is my only question.

If it's true, it's reprehensible, regardless of what Ann Coulter has said recently.

Each of the events has been reported in local media outlets since they happened, so yes they are true.

with some/considerable risk of being misunderstood...

i'm not that charitable to queers who support canidates who are obviously harmful to the interests of the community. Their personal gain comes at the price...one that we're not willing to pay. They want the gains that came at such a hard price, the right to be in public life without being completely destroyed...but they're willing to trade in anti-gay rhetoric to get a few votes. It's gross.

Now, i'm not in a position to judge if this mans politics are "anti-black" or not...

but i could understand the feeling of betrayal if his policies were seen to be so. oreo or (diet queer) is a nasty thing to say...collaborating with harmful policies for personal gain is a nasty thing to do.

Martin,

I understand what you are saying, but it seems that isn't what is happening.

That is, unless you blindly believe that dems are for minorities and repubs are against them.

My personal view is that each party uses them like they use everyone else, i.e. to get elected.

I am irritated with the dems on this since it seems to me that they pander and plain out condescend to them (whitey got you down! vote democrat!) to get votes.

There is one intelligent reply by a liberal. At least martin tried to think of a reason, try to place some context or reasoning behind this. Too bad he's drowned out by the "Washington times propaganda anne coulter is the devil" chant.

When the democratic party can come together and actually get a unified message out telling america and the African-American community what they stand for and why they should vote democrat, maybe, just maybe, the party will have a chance in the future. Somehow I don't see that happening. Until then the democratic party will continue to be run by the "bush lied" "bush hates blacks" and "no blood for oil" crowds. Am I missing someone?

Anyhow...back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

It is VERY true. Democrats of all races, particularly elected ones, are condoning the actions of some black officials who racially slurred, and assaulted Maryland's Lt Governor with oreo cookies, because they are practicing hate approved by the democrats.

The democrats are scared shitless, because Michael Steele, an effective, charismatic, popular, and republican african-american is muonting a very serious challenge to the democrates stranglehold on the two Senate seats of Maryland.

Anyway this apparently happened in 02 during the gubernatorial race, and has resurfaced, and quite wide spread, in the last few days on local news and talk radio, where prominent elected leaders of the democrat persuasion have given tacit approval of ~this~ particular hate. Most voters, on the other hand seems to be quite dismayed, and so far Kwesi Mfume, also in the Senate Race, came out in the last few days against it.

Here ladies and gentlemen is another example of approved democrat hate. Since the washpost doesn't tow the democratic hate rhetoric, it gets labeled as irrelevant and credibility destroying. Rediclulous.

I think this comment speaks volumes about the poster and the dying ideology of failure and irrelevance that is subscribed to.

What a thoughtful, introspective, and enlightening contribution. Your opposition thanks you.

-bear

this is quite possibly the most heinous example of how partisan politics has divided, make that splintered, america. If everyone would like to see just how much the dems and reps would work together in a completely bi partisan way, just vote independent next election in 06. I 'GUARANTEE' that once americans start electing someone OTHER than the two major parties, you'd see dems and reps come together in collusion to find even more ways of keeping 3rd party candidates out of contention.

If it is true and since you are there and I respect your take on it, then all I have to say is this is pathetic, gives Dems a bad name but is NOT what all Dems. believe or feel.

Anyone has the right to believe however they choose and NOONE should ridicule, laugh at or personally attack another for their beliefs.

As for the Times, it maybe a very legit paper, but as long as Rev. Moon owns it and is giving millions and aid to N. Korea and calling himself the "grand ruler of the universe" it holds no weight with me. Just as I am sure some of my sources hold no weight with some of you, GOP.

Personally, the way the title is the whole thread was developed to be a "see how evil Dems. are" thread which leads to the Us vs them. IMHO.

like titling a thread "look another bush crony scandle" isn't at all us vs. them. Is there an emoticon for *sigh*?

Well, that thread at least started out with a legitimate article by the AP. I will admit that there have been other threads started on the basis of shady sources, but those are usually opinion pieces, whereas this is presented as a straight news piece. The individual events did happen, but like a bad Michael Moore documentary, they are misrepresented and distorted in order to serve an agenda.

I agree with Lebell that there is something to discuss here, but it's hard to do so on the basis of a misleading and dishonest article.

can someone tell me how this is indicitive of all democrats? some black democrats of done this... does that mean all democrats are like that? This article needs to say which black democratic leaders said this not "black democratic leaders" who is that what does it mean? does leaders mean 2 people or does it mean all of them? this article was written with a slant, what is says may be factual but also missleading.

At the same time you don't get much condemnation from the left. Even on this board, the first things heard were how the times in a propaganda piece and then stuff about anne coulter. That says something about democrats right there. Shame? Fear? something.

The only thing to "condemn" here is the credit report incident, not because it was racially motivated, but because it might have been illegal. It was wrong and the staffers who did it should be fired. Most of the other stuff is old news, even though the article tries to mislead people into thinking it happened recently.

not even the overt racisim? you don't think thats worth condemning?

I guess i wonder if this is racism since 1) it is done by the same race 2) it doesn't make blanket assumptions about everyone in that race.

to me racism means judging someone based on the color of their skin. ie since he is black he is a junkie. this is a case of black people unhappy with one of their own and using common terms within the black community to describe this guy. Is it silly? Yes it is stupid. Is it racism? I don't know.

What overt racism? Steele and the Republicans have used his race to win votes, so why can't the Democrats point out that Steele is out of touch with the black community. I don't see anything wrong with that, as long as you're not calling him names or throwing things at him.

And it can be dangerous to do so, anyhow. For instance, is seeking to abolish affirmative action anti-black? Likewise, is seeking to overturn hate crime legislation anti-women or anti-minorities or anti-gay? Or could there be a lack of bigotry in the motivation to do so?

It may be that good intentions lead such politicians to make decisions that aren't worth the damage they do to a particular group, but that doesn't make them anti-thatgroup. Unless you're trying to dilute the phrase to the point where it means something other than what one generally would assume it means, in which case you have a responsibility to elaborate on what is meant by "anti-black".

Yeah, I don't think it's a question of being "anti-black" so much as being out of touch with the black community. Steele has consistently taken positions and supported politicians that are overwhelmingly opposed by the black community.

They're unhappy with one of their own because he isn't acting as someone with his level of skin pigmentation should. I could see this hair-splitting if the term 'oreo' didn't essentially mean "someone who isn't acting like I would expect them to, given their skin color".

Obviously, it would be a different matter if he were ordering all other black people onto prison camps. There would be a line somewhere, past which you could confidently say, "he's a black guy who's anti-black". But I kinda doubt Steele crossed that line.

Wrong. I condemn anything of this nature. The problem is that the OP's thread title implies that if you're a democrat, then this describes your attitude. Which is a pompous, uninspired and inaccurate viewpoint. It has nothing to do with Ann Coulter - OBVIOUSLY - and I wouldn't have used her as an example of anything at all if the OP hadn't lumped all democrats into the article's absurd portrayal based on what some idiots in Maryland did. but look how you react when you are generalized in that way. Same way I do.

while i think is stupid and childish of the the black democrats in the article, it's not racist. it's an inappropriate way of expressing their dislike/disgust at a political oppenent who they see as a black man out of touch with black values/community. it's not the most mature way of going about it, but considering the 10 second attention span of many americans these days, it's probably more effective than saying 'candidate x is bad because of yadda yadda yadda.'

Sorry, missed this.

It's possible he's "out of touch". It's also possible that he simply disagrees.

I will say this: both Rep. Ben Cardin and Kwaese Mfume, the main Democratic senate candidates, have condemned this behavior.

To those who say this isn't "racist" because both sides are the same race, all I can say is that doesn't the fact that the black Democrats believe that their view is the ONLY possible view and anyone else who is black and disagrees is an "oreo" come off as more racist then the actual statements?

Actually i was thinking about that very thing when i posted earlier. Assumeing that he should believe the same as all black people is silly and is racist. But saying he is out of touch with the black majority is not racist. Now throwing oreos is increadibly stupid but i'm pretty sure the democratic leaders wern't the ones doing that.

Here's the thing...i regularly decide if i think a politician is anti-queer. There are two levels. Are they willing to trade in anti-gay rhetoric to get elected? There is a huge industry in sending out homophobic fund raising material "TEH GHEYS ARE TRYING TO STEAL YOUR CHILDREND!!!" and the like...

Are they in support of, or silent assent to anti-queer political movements. FMA or ban on civil unions, opposing hate crime laws, etc...

As a member of a community, i make choices and decisions in conversation with that community, if a politician stands for us or against us. Now, it's not a 100% thing...there are in fact hard core republican queers. I think they're flipping loons to think that this makes them safe or isn't tantamount to treason...but that's another post. The point is that the political desires and needs of minority (racial or whatever) communities often align to a significant degree. If a canidate ran on a hyped up campaign of welfare "reform" and "tough on crime" while cutting job programs and education funding...

I'd tend to think that that would signal a participation in racist rhetoric, and agreement and assent to policies that are at least functionally and perhaps structurally constructed as anti-black.

And here's the thing in my view. Sending out "OMG TEH GHEYS!!1one" propaganda is clearly anti-gay. Agreed with you on that level. But opposing hate crime laws? Opposing gay marriage? No, not so clear. Neither position requires bigotry.

What I'd like to get clear is whether "anti-gay" and "anti-black" refer to bad consequences or bad intentions. If the former, then Steele could be fair game for the term, but it should be made clear that the term doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Steele's character. He could just be wrong without being a traitor. If the latter, then I think you grossly overgeneralize in your labeling of certain political positions as 'anti-thisgroup'.

i disagree with you about the line...i think that opposition of full citizenship isn't just a political stance that isn't a character issue.

if you expect to get your rights from kissing the ass of the institution, and for everyone else like you to suffer the effects of being social debris...

i think that's treason.

But perhaps they don't see it as "opposing full citizenship" or "getting rights", and perhaps they hold to their politics for reasons other than ass-kissing. Why do you make these assumptions?

For clarity, is treason necessarily an intentional act or can it be wholly unintentional?

Without direct reference to the racial issues...

There are two basic ways that a queer person can be accepted by society today. They can do so by active participation in the movement for rights or they can try to "pass" as straight. For a queer person to "pass" and accept the benifits of being percieved as straight, and then turn around and participate in policies that harm people just like them...

I don't care if they've figured out that this is wrong, or what their reasons are. It's hypocrasy, pure and simple. And a harmful one at that. If you believe that you personally deserve the respect of society, but that other people do not...i'm going to call foul.

Using the community so that you don't live in a world where queer witch hunts are common, and physical violence (even from law enforcement) is the norm...and then harming that very community for personal gain?

How is that not treason?

Now...some take this logic and move to outing as a reasonable response. I'm somewhat more wary, for a variety of reasons, but in general follow the Frank rule...that as soon as one's personal hypocrasy begins to harm others in the community, it is no longer reasonable for us to maintain our secrecy.

this does not make sense, you can't have both properties be true and be talking about the same society.

but you are presupposing that they do think they deserve the respect of society... which would be illogical if they in fact do think of their homosexuality as wrong.

It would be hypocrisy if disrespect were one of their aims. If their aim really is, and is with good intention, welfare reform or the removal of hate crime laws, and they mean no disrespect, then I don't see the hypocrisy.

edit: irate covered the other possibility here.

If the policies hurt themselves in addition to people like them, then I don't see the hypocrisy. "I don't think the government should sanction ANY same-sex marriage" is not hypocritical.

Is the policy in question directly attacking the benefits that the closeted politician keeps, or is the attack due to societal trends that can be but aren't necessarily associated with the policy? To give an example, are all those against hate crime legislation automatically against gays gaining full societal acceptance? Is it not possible to be against the former but in favor of the latter?

Yeah, if personal gain was the only motivation, then it'd be treason. But a gay man/woman could easily be against hate-crime legislation on principle and the same is possible for an anti-gay marriage position. If that situation's still treason, then it's a treason I don't attach much significance to. Treason could be the correct choice.

Uh, yes. Those are the two major and opposing methods of being queer in a straigh society. Deal with it openly, or hide.


Yeah, I am. Usually the self-haters go in to the "pass as straight" category, in which case, if they make policy moves harmful to the queer community, i think they've made themselves open season. Especially if they've been gracing our bedrooms while doing so...and they usually do.

I'd disagree...in both cases, there is a demonstrated need for both policies...these are not nicities. Read gilda's thread about the accident...without marriage being available, there can be serious barriers to having one's partner be present after an accident or life threatening illness. Simply, there is no principled reason, IMO, for a queer person to not support queer rights: the right to have your partner visit you in the hospital, the right to be financially linked, the right to be a family, the right to be protected by the law. If somebody wants to get elected by denying me those basic rights, then its on.

Wealth and/or priviledge can shield a person from a great deal of the negative effects of homophobia and the like. I don't take kindly to the people who "make it" by stepping on the rest of us. I assume that it's a similar idea in racial minority communities. Since when is it okay for a person to take the support of a community for years, and then turn around and act like they don't owe anything back?

Principled reason for being against gay marriage: the fear that it'll destabilize the entire institution of marriage. I didn't say anything about the reasoning being solid, mind you.

Principled reason for being against hate crime legislation: crimes should not be treated differently based on the identity of the victim.

I see no reason why anyone, gay or straight, couldn't claim either principle. If you wish to argue that the reasoning of these plrinciples is flawed, you'll have a new argument on one hand (hate crime legislation) and agreement on the other (gay marriage). But if you can't see how a gay person might stand against these policies in principle, then I don't think you're being imaginative enough.

I did read Gilda's thread, by the way, and I think it's a terrible shame. Whether through gay marriage or though some other sufficient method, this needs to change.

still not making sense, one necessarily excludes the other.

if they must deny their homosexuality in public to gain respectable acceptance by society in one instance, how would they gain the same society's respect by becoming loudly open about it?

What the? That's exactly what i'm saying. Those are two (2) separate, distinct, opposing, non-conflatable, you do one OR the other but NOT both, can't have it both ways, divergent, some people choose one and some choose the other, oil and water, diametrically opposed, and different ways of being queer in a straight society.

As a person who is out, my message to the closet cases who think that as long as they play by the rules they can benifit at my (and the rest of the community's) expense? Your silence will not make you safe. If your private decision to be closeted becomes a position from which to attack the queer community? Don't expect to have closet doors any more.

Outing is a legitimate, if difficult tactic. It can, short term, reinforce a message that queer is negative...and as such is a last resort measure. But it may be required to prevent larger damage on the out community from a few self-serving closet cases. In the case of politicians who are willing to support the FMA to keep their political ambitions alive...I think it's unfair for them to continue to expect our discretion.

Principled involves beliving your reason. Thus, my conclusion, that a queer person would have no principled reason for opposing it...

You don't think they could genuinely believe it? Why not?

without a serious dose of self-hatred, i don't know how a person could think that they deserve to be second class citizenry, or that their affirmation will cause the downfall of society. It's delusional to think oneself is that bad (and that important for that matter.)

Seriously. Think about what it would mean to believe that. In most cases, we would say it's pathological. It's absorbed self-hate...and if they want to think that privately, i think that's too bad. If they want me and others to hate ourselves... That's another matter entirely.

sidenote...i realize that in being snide to irate, i may have oversimplified matters a touch. It is obviously possible to remain closeted in some realms of life and not others. I was out a school for some time before i told my parents...and most straight people who meet me breifly probably think that i'm straight as well. But my utilitarian use of passing (as in, i don't think it's necessary to hit everyone over the head with it) is not reflective of my willingness to stand with my community in times of need. When it comes down to it, i have been willing to be open and active in the struggle to secure fundamental rights for all citizens.

This leaves the point i was making. The overall choice of ethos is either to be open or to hide. Despite the attraction of the latter, for the most part it has become a fool's choice. We are at a point in history where silence will not protect our interests or help us lead happy or normal lives.

You're still making a lot of assumptions that I'm not (yet?) willing to.

#1 - But with a serious dose of self-hatred? Would you concede that they could genuinely believe then? That it could be a matter of principle then?

#2 - It needn't be self-hatred. I'll bring up that one cliche, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". They could believe that there's nothing wrong with them so long as they aren't actually participating in any sort of homosexual act.

#3 - "Gay marriage destabilizes the institution" does NOT equal "affirmation of gay relationships is bad". Keep in mind the many people against legal gay marriage who have no problem with religious or nonreligious gay marriage ceremonies. Or the many people who don't mind the idea of civil unions.

#4 - They may not view it as a matter of second-class citizenry. Perhaps they view marriage as a function applicable only to heterosexual couples. Perhaps they don't view marriage as a right. (Libertarians in favor of removing marriage from the public sphere would agree.) Perhaps they view gay marriage as unnecessary catering to a minority group, like removing "In God We Trust" from our money. And perhaps those who are aware of situations like Gilda's would prefer that problem be fixed in a different way not altering the legal conception of marriage.

#5 - Dude, sometimes people just don't sufficiently examine their beliefs and don't see the flaws and unintended conclusions that you've been seeing.

There really are people out there who want to reserve marriage for heteros yet do not view gay couples as inferior. It's possible for the position to be devoid of any anti-gay sentiment.

Hardly more than it is a stance of principle for a person to believe that they are the anti-Christ. Irrational self-hatred is a pathological affect.

If they're celibate...that probably puts them in another category entirely, one i haven't seen. In the Ex-gay movement for instance, the leadership turns over every few years. Guess why. You see, there's a reason why people have been outed. They didn't keep to themselves. And when these hypocrites asked their political victims to keep them safe...


I live in an interesting place...being attracted to both men and women. I can't find a difference in how committed those relationships are, if they are worthy of recognition by marriage, or any other categorical matter. And i can personally tell you each one of those positions is untenable. Simply, there is no rational reason for claiming that queer marriage is not the funcational equivalent of hetero marriage. Treating people differently for unsubstantiated reasons is discrimination, a failure to regard the all as equal before the law. Would you make any of these arguments based on race? Or wouldn't that make you a racist?

If you want to live the unexamined life, then for God's sake stay out of politics and do not use the apparatus of the state to impose your unthinking views on other people. The right to be an idiot is a private matter, not public one. I would NEVER support the outing of a private citizen who simply wanted to be a closet case.

Make any of those arguements above based on racial lines...and you'll soon see why i disagree with that.

A book that they're brought up to believe as word of God states that homosexuality is wrong. Doesn't sound all that irrational to me. Wrong, but not irrational.

Yeah, I'm not talking about the risk-takers. Although it's certainly possible for a "slip" to be followed by genuine remorse, confession, and penance.

And again, I'd state that substantiated rational reasons can appear to exist. It's just that none of them stand up to intense scrutiny from what I've seen. "There's no possibility of procreation" can, on a couple superficial layers, be seen as substantiation.

Not UNexamined, insufficiently examined. We're not talking about idiots here.

If you want one of these "idiot" closet cases to remain an "idiot", the best thing to do is to treat him as nothing but a harmful enemy who could never be shown the errors in his thinking. Maybe some can't, but I'd rather not make such a careless blanket assumption.

I don't see the two as analogous because I don't see any arguments even superficially sound that aren't racist. Well, except for "marriage isn't a right and should be removed from the public sphere, rather than expanded".

Perhaps it'd be better to choose an issue that relates to Steele?

I feel badly for people who are told this...but it again becomes a right to swing your fist stopping at my nose issue. If they in error, believe that God's message to them is not love, but rather condemnation...i'll do my best to tell them otherwise. If they begin preaching that destructive message to others...or using the power of the state to enforce it...

This is not to say they aren't authentically queer, or that somehow this makes them the worst person on earth. That's not it. But i can't regard this kind of self-hatred as a legitimate political position.

Again, you're speaking of a category i haven't really seen. Do they exist, i'm sure of it. But in American political life, its rare to the point of non-existance as far as i know.

My point is that i don't know how a human being decides that their own love makes them the devil. I don't know how you authentically integrate the hatred of society into your being, and start a witch hunt for people just like you. I don't know how you grow up as a person of color in a racist soceity and think that the "real" problem doesn't lie with systemic racism...that personal sucess has to come at the price of blaming those who don't suceed. How can a person live such a reality, and then come to such a non-sequiter conclusion?

The original quote covers "insufficient" as well. The responsbility to get things right comes with acceptance of political life. And i do hope to change minds. But most of them won't change without being forced out of the untenability of their self-hate. It can be an ugly process, to confront the way that your own personal demons became a starting point for persecuting others. But without such realization, i don't know where one would start to get better.


That's my point. If you can't make these arguments without being a racists, why can a person make them and not be a homophobe?

Then vote and campaign against them. Like you do with every other politician who holds beliefs you disagree with.

I'll admit I'm heading into the realm of speculation now, but it would make sense that you wouldn't know of the ones who don't take risks.

It needn't involve hatred or a witchhunt. That was the point I was trying to make.

Not be a bigot?

Because there is no obvious and certain bigotry on the surface of some of the arguments I've listed. There's obvious possible bigotry; they could hold these positions because they consider same-sex relationships inferior. But there's no bigotry that's both necessarily tied to the belief and obvious. At least not as I see it. I see the bigotry being necessarily tied to the belief if you dig deeply enough (at least as far as I've dug), but not automatic as if it's a simple equation of "anti-gay marriage = anti-gay". There's nuances that prevent that kind of simplicity, even if the nuances can be torn down.

If necessary, i'd include outing. Again...i've said it here before...it's a stratagy i'm somewhat uncomfortable with, but have accepted as necessary in certain situations. When one of "us" decides that their welfare is more important than the rest of the community, i think it becomes a proper defense to note the hypocrasy involved.

I don't think you can have it both ways. Unless queer persons are thought to be inferior to straight ones, i can think of no rational reason of not extending marraige and other basic rights. Those nuances are smokescreen, not substance, IMO.

I don't think we need to come to agreement, but what i wanted to show, is from one perspective how the rhetoric comes to be like this. A lot of people see outing or oreos and think that's where the discussion starts. They then often place blame accordingly.

But what i'm getting at here, is that there is a preceeding action in these cases that the community believes to be harmful enough to warrant retaliation. There's a reason, even if you disagree with it, for the rhetoric to be this heated.

The Dem's have shown the true face of intolerance.

And the GOP never has? :rolleyes:

People are people regardless of party, and some people will be more opinionated and feel certain ways, but not every Dem, or even the majority may feel that way. Same with GOP, same with any organization or any group of 2 people or more.

To make a comment like that and in essence believe or imply every Dem feels this way is wrong and ridiculous.

People are people and everyone has differing views.

The hypocrisy isn't the damaging factor, though. And it generally isn't - usually it matters little whether someone is hypocritical and wrong or consistently wrong. The big problem would be bad policy and inflammatory rhetoric. You're using a part of his personal life against him, not his policies, and that strikes me as fighting sleazy politics with sleazy politics.

Yeah. And sometimes there's a justification as well. My point is that when it comes to possibly gay marriage (you gave some good arguments I had to chew over) and surely (in my view) issues such as hate crime legislation or welfare reform or the cutting of city services, there may not be justification and I believe that the burden of proof should lie on the accuser. The accuser should be prepared to explain why the positions/rhetoric must necessarily be anti-thisgroup.

Never mind. Hypocrisy this blatant isn't worth my comments, and I'll just invite shrill cries of "bigot!" if I put the shoe on the other foot.

I heard about this awhile ago, but I thought this was done by some blogger and basically condemned by most people? I thought it was in really aweful taste, and from what I could tell unwarrented. (labels like oreo, twinkie and such suck...) That said, I don't think Steele is as popular as some of you are making him out to be. I live in the Potomac area and honestly nobody likes the Erlich/Steele goverment that much.

but I haven't been home in a couple months (school) so maybe radical shifts in thought have occured.

offtopic: I read the Washington Post, NYT, and Washington Times, and honestly the Washington Times just isn't as good a paper, I'm not saying it's not a ok source of info, but overall I think the articles aren't as well written.

I think this whole thing is asinine and really, just a bunch of right wing rabble rousing in the hopes that they can deflect some attention from the fact that their party is falling apart.

Although I'd prefer that people could just drop the tags of black/white or gay/straight people have built identities about themself and the people that have similar traits.

martin makes a great comparison to the use of outings to show closeted gay people as hypocrites. I think it's a lot easier to see the analogy by looking at a closeted republican gays. The truth is that republican gays are simply in sleeping with the enemy. It is the Republican party that seeks the ability to treat gays as subhumans, not the Democrats. Republicans actively seek:

Banning gay marriage
The ability to discriminate against gays in the workplace, and
Elimination of unmarried partner benefits.

I think it is necessary for the gay community to out closeted gay politicians that choose to align with republicans and seek out anti-gay policies. I also think that straight people should not get involved with these disputes within the gay community (ie outing of a closeted gay is ok if done by other gays, not ok if done by straight people).

Taking this back to the issue of 'oreos,' many Black leaders see the Republicans as being an enemy to black americans. If they choose to attack him for what they percieve as being a 'traitor to their kind' and call him an oreo, then that is their fight. White democrats should stay out of it.

The other issue is that Republicans are trying to attack the dem party as a whole becuase they stayed out. Deciding not to stay out and not condemn does not equal agreement with a tactic.

Because it's only okay for gay people to resort to such childish and disgusting tactics as 'valid' responses to opposition. I could possibly see relevance if the sexual orientation of anti-gay policy proponents had any bearing on the validity of the policy. It doesn't. Hypocrisy, if it is present in a given situation, only indicates inconsistency and not which part of the inconsistency should be trashed. It's not relevant, and bringing it up can only serve as a way to hurt someone you disagree with. Bring it up if it has any bearing on their job or their adherence to law. (Out of curiosity, what'd you think of the whole Clinton/Lewinsky episode?)

Nonsense. White democrats are just as capable of debating the validity of such charges. They can look at policies and decide whether they necessarily entail an anti-black agenda. And HINT, not all consequences resulting from public policy are intended.

No. But it does equal condoning.

Bullshit. That's just like the crap that gets strewn around at Muslims. Since they don't say anything they are condoning terrorism. More BS.

If the Muslims in question were a part of a political party which included a terrorist wing, then yeah, I would see that analogy as apt.

But I'm mulling over that last point I made. I'm thinking that it would make a difference whether it was standard practice to disassociate one's self from others in the party who make objectionable statements.

two things...

dissociation, and condoning: there's obviously a fine line involved in deciding how much agreement one seeks from someone before labeling them a traitor. but i fail to see how in American political life, where we have pretty well absolute freedom to make political statements...that failing to stand against something *while holding a position of power* isn't the same as silent affirmation. If you can do something to stop a bill and you don't....that at least says you're not opposed to it. I'm wary to draw parallels to less liberal democratic (i mean small caps on both) societies...

The who: the question isn't hetero vs. non-hetero. i think the question is straight vs. queer. They are positional and perspectival labels. A person who is queer is one whose sexual/gender idenity or presentation places them in conflict with a heteronormative society (one that demands straight idenity and polices gender roles). Thus, a man who is percieved as "effeminate" might be hetero, but still be queer in that his gender idenity causes conflict with a heterosexist society. Or, a woman who is a ally to the community might be percieved through one of the classic tropes of the "dyke" or as a bitch because of her advocacy...even if she sleeps with men. It isn't who you fuck. It's who society thinks you are because of who they think you fuck.

All of this goes to who is allowed to do this. If you haven't put your neck on the line because of being queer for whatever reason....i don't trust you to have the right amount of caution in doing any of this. It's tricky for me to call these shots, and i do so in conversation with the community. The last thing we need is people who don't know what the risks are using outing as "just another" tool in the political armament. What makes outing a tactic with a potential for liberation is that it comes from the very people that have the most to lose. Otherwise...it would just be gay baiting. It's not that a hetero person could never do this...but that a person who is "straight" couldn't understand what it means to be targeted by society....and what it means to return fire in self-defense.