« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Dems talk to gays, offending he who only talks about them

by Jeremy Hooper

 McculloughSo yesterday we told you how some Democratic candidates will be participating in a live televised event being jointly produced by HRC and the Logo network. Well today, in a piece he charmingly calls "Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101," conservative writer Kevin McCullough cobbles together some of the most offensive sentences one can possibly imagine to attack the participating candidates, HRC, Logo, and gays worldwide. Here are some choice passages (in red) followed by our own running commentary (in blue):

So what kind of journalists do they have at LOGO-TV?

One of the lowest rated cable outlets in existence LOGO serves exclusively the communities of people who identify themselves by the type of perverse sexual activity they engage in. "Man/boy lovers", "butch/girly girl amores", "I like to go both ways," and the "I look like a girl but am I" crowds all make their way to LOGO-TV for some daily affirmations where they are told repeatedly, "do whatever you can imagine, and ignore the prudes who say otherwise."

Well first off, Kevin, when you present a question like "What kind of journalists do they have?" your immediate response should be to actually address the journalists on staff. While it hasn't been announced whether they will be involved or not, Logo does have credible journalists like Jason Bellini and Itay Hod on staff, both of who have several mainstream reporting credits on their resumes. And they have access to the resources of CBS News. You may have your own opinions about that particular news organization or the credentials of Logo's journalistic staff, and those are what you should air out to followup this particular question.

Since you instead chose to attack Logo's ratings and mission instead of its potential and capabilities, we too will talk about that aspect instead. While certainly not a top-rated cable network, Logo has been gaining ground over the two years that it's been in existence. As a niche network, it certainly has a tougher road towards popularity than, say, an MTV or ESPN. But the niche to which it appeals is not the band of confused individuals that you wish they were. Logo's niche is a vibrant, intelligent, monied, politically informed sect of the population who believes that anti-gay attitudes and politics are ruining actual lives. They are people of all sexual orientations who believe in fairness and enjoy seeing LGBT people represented in their entertainment choices. These people vote.

We will never be able to compare in the same campaign cycle the journalistic prowess of the type of lightweight questions Democratic candidates will face from the shoddy crew at Fox News Channel. After all who could argue with the intellectual, philosophical, economic, national security, and social conscience expertise of a network that prides itself on the number of different ways a human being can have engage in sexual behavior while at the same time avoiding good old fashioned marital sexual intercourse?

Well here's the thing, Mr. Mc: Unlike Fox News, Logo is not putting up any "fair and balanced" front on LGBT issues. In terms of gay acceptance, the network is unapologetically on board! So going in to the Aug. 9 event, everyone involved -- candidates, personalities, viewers -- should know full well that the LGBT-centric questions lobbed at the presidential hopefuls will be coming from a place that views gays as part of the spectrum of normalcy. The reason why the Dem candidates were and are leery about appearing at a Fox News debate is because that organization presents itself as non-biased and fair, yet their record and personalities have demonstrated otherwise time and time again. It's one thing to lay your cards all out on the table and say, "This is where I stand, so let's discuss the issues from that standpoint." It's quite another to say, "I have no agenda" when you have so clearly demonstrated one that is hostile to the subjects' political leanings.

Oh, and for the record -- we DESPERATELY want to have "good old fashioned marital sexual intercourse." In fact, we imagine the question to obtain that legally-bound form of copulation will be a hot topic at the HRC/Logo "debate."

In the attempt by the three leading contenders for the Democratic nomination America will see for the first time (or at least the ten viewers who get LOGO as part of their cable package) how far Democratic candidates are willing to pander to get a vote.

Does it take an entire broadcast hour for each of them to "out gay" the other one? Will Obama and/or Edwards show up in Chiffon? Will Hillary pass love notes to Etheridge?

Oh, isn't that cute? Because you know us gays -- we just love our chiffon, and we (and apparently Hillary) want to f*** everything of the same gender that exists in our presence.

And no, we can't possibly imagine what else we could discuss in an hour in terms of LGBT politics. God knows there has been absolutely no political discussion on the gay subject over the past few years!

::Writer rolls eyes so dramatically, he's convinced some conservative commentator somewhere is debating the sanctity of gays' sarcastic ocular movements::

Oh, and Logo exists in many, many homes, Mr. McCullough. Plus the event will be available online, and will surely be disseminated in countless other ways (YouTube, podcasts, various cable news show clips). So to paraphrase Mean Girls: Stop trying to make the "nobody watches Logo" thing happen. It's not gonna happen.

The willingness of the leading candidates of the Democratic Party to even acknowledge the invite of the LOGO network is embarrassing enough. To go so far as to give their consent to be queried over the softball questions that they will be thrown is a travesty to the American political process.

This move will ultimately come back to hurt them bad.

I personally will see to it that all 8000 churches in New York City are aware of their willingness to pander to perverts. And mark my words, large numbers of previously assumed "safe" African American votes will be looking for a candidate other than these when push comes to shove.

That's not a threat.

It's a promise!

Wow. It's embarrassing that the candidates even considered the Logo invite? Gee, we wonder if you would have said the same thing if the network had been one that targets women, African-Americans, religious viewers, or any other voting group. Probably not, as you surely don't view the LGBT population as a valid minority sect. However, for the rest of us who realize that gays are -- mainly because of the socio-religo-political condemnations that are still perpetuated by folks like yourself, Mr. McCullough -- a community of individuals who are bound together by several common themes (which far exceed sex). And again, since our issues seem to be the hot political topic of this era, it is not only valid for the candidates to have a discussion with the people who are TRULY affected by these issues -- it should be REQUIRED of all of the White House would-bes who hold an opinion on our lives (Dem, Repub, or somewhere in between).

As for your threat promise, Mr. Mc: Good luck with all that. We have a feeling that the vast majority of those 8,000 NYC churches would be less-than-comfortable with a person who says something like "panders to perverts." And while it's become very hot in the "pro-family" movement to try and hijack the African-American community -- the same community that, it should be noted, many religious conservative types once offensively targeted with interracial marriage bans -- there is a considerable block of black leaders that have been stepping up to make their pro-fairness, pro-equality stances known. Once the ACTUAL facts are made known and one the "hijacking of the civil rights movement" claims are fully debunked by intelligent voices on our side of the issue, we are more than confident that the African-American community will even more fully see why this "culture war battle" is one in which they should engage. And we have a good feeling about where the will come down in the match-up between oppression vs. freedom.

By having events like the Logo/HRC one, our side will have the opportunity to flesh out the truth behind gay issues for those who are not as well-versed in the subject. THAT is the true fear for social conservatives! There is a considerable block of the population who would be on the pro-gay team if only the inflammatory, mean-spirited, "sanctity of marriage"-laden rhetoric from our opposition were cut through and sorted out. Mr. McCulloguh, you may call it "pandering" for candidates to debate political issues with the ones who are truly affected by them. We, however, call it refreshing.

For the rest of McCullough's "lovely" words:

Democrats: Pandering to Perverts 101 [TownHall]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

He refers to LOGO's audience, which includes myself, as: "Man/boy lovers", "butch/girly girl amores", "I like to go both ways," and the "I look like a girl but am I" crowds.

I don't know what to say about this except that it is REALLY offensive. Also, which programs on LOGO target man/boy lovers? (Seems like more of a Disney Channel thing.)

Posted by: GayMormonBoy | Jul 11, 2007 1:38:14 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails