Posts Tagged ‘tolerant left’

with this article concerning Elena Kagan:

Gossiping about the sexuality of Washington powerbrokers has become sort of a national pastime. But the stakes—and the vitriol—seem to go up substantially when powerful women crash the beltway frat party. And while Sullivan might think that sexual orientation has become as bland a biographical detail as Jewishness, the unfortunate truth is that, unlike him, most of those suggesting Kagan has something to hide aren’t rooting for her to come out so she can advance the cause of gay rights. They just want to knock a powerful woman down a few notches.

I have not nor do I suggest that Elena Kagan’s sexuality disqualifies her for the high court, nor should it. Yet Mother Jones suggests that to be a Lesbian is a slur. Why is that? How is the suggestion that Kagan is a lesbian directing hate to her? I think the very suggestion is a great example of two things.

The first being projection, Mother Jones’ Stephanie Memcimer is quick to play the “homophobia” card but she is the one suggesting Lesbianism is a slur, something to be denied. I guess Cynthia is right when she talks about the left’s true feelings about homosexuals.

The second being the suggestion that the White house plan is to duck the issue until it can be framed as Mother Jones just did. That way it can be the story of: Evil Right Wingers pushing the Kagan’s sexuality as an issue, as opposed to a celebration of the first Lesbian justice. This will give the media a reason to celebrate the diversity without having brought it up themselves first being forced into it. The White House’s cunning plan that I mentioned in play?

Sounds like don’t ask don’t tell to me, but it can’t be because we know Kagan opposes it.

Even funnier than that is this line that really takes the cake:

Just ask John Edwards how hard it is to keep secret relationships secret in the era of 24/7 celebrity coverage.

Is she serious? Does she not recall the successful efforts of the media to totally ignore and deny the John Edwards story until there was no chance of him getting the nomination? This is supposed to be a professional journalist who I am to give credence to? Ha!

Given that 20 years ago the whole idea of “Gay Marriage” was considered nonsense was practically everyone in the country a bigot at that time?

When the subject of civil unions came up and we were assured by those pushing for them that it would not lead to Gay Marriage where those people making said assurances bigots? If not why?

When the Massachusetts supreme court mandated gay marriage by a 4-3 vote did that suddenly make the braking point where people who disagreed with the decision were now formally bigots?

If a person is age 60 or above at what age in life did they have to publicly support gay marriage to prove they are not a bigot? How about age 40?

Since gay marriage was considered a bad joke 20+ years ago can we assume that all members of congress and pols of the 20th century were bigots?

The question that the main stream media needs to ask is this? Is there any reason why you give any credence to this fool?

Update: Robert Stacy makes a similar point.

One of the things that tends to drive me nuts about the left is how they tend to cry tolerance but have an issue showing any. A great example comes up in the story about the fall of MSNBC.

MSNBC is the network of progressives and for progressives. Yet, there is nothing progressive about the network’s employees being terrified to speak up for fear of losing their jobs. Progressives also like to think of themselves as the people who ‘have a heart.’ Thus, there is nothing progressive about making fun of a difficult and terrible experience of youth acknowledged by one who has suffered from the event, even if she happens to be the wife of a former president you don’t like. It’s mean – and it contributes absolutely nothing to the political dialogue.

One of the reasons why the Scott Brown election seemed such a relief was the almost unspoken rule in Massachusetts that seemed to exist where people who where people of a conservative bent felt pressured to keep their mouths shut in the face of other opinions for fear of being called racist, sexist, bigoted. On our jobs, at public events, etc to be conservatives publicly was to be looked down on, a second class citizen, a “redneck” or at the very least very impolite.

Some of us were too outgoing to keep quiet, some didn’t give a damn (fluffy Hussein and all that) but most people are polite and just want to live their lives without trouble.

The Scott Brown election and the dynamics in Washington changed things now not only are conservatives not cowed but they have found that their voice resonates nationwide.

Until this media wide problem is corrected they will not only be distrusted but deserved to be distrusted.

…do you think the White House/MSM will decide it is newsworthy? If you look at Memeorandum I’d have to say yes.

Now As you should know I like Morning Joe, I like Joe, Mika et/al although at times they drive me nuts. One question:

“Wouldn’t it have been good to be in front of this today and beaten Rush to the punch?” Don’t you think it would have been better for him to have to follow you guys rather than lead you?

Instead you were beaten by me, Instapundit, Yid with Lid, Powerline, Dan Riehl, Robert Stacy, Captain Ed, Bill Jacobson,

The apology would have been a Morning Joe story instead of a Ben Smith story.

Hey the man in the Fedora is just trying to help you out here.