Remember how homo-journo James Kirchick blasted the gays who blasted Jonathan Crutchley for backing John McCain? Those people are, he says, “intolerant.” Well, Chris Crain generally agrees. [NY Blade]
Get Queerty Daily
Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #chriscrain #johnmccain stories and moreFeatured on Queerty TV
31 Comments
Comments are closed.
ChristopherM
Crain, like Kirchick, can suck it. If someone is promoting a candidate who is anti-gay at every single turn, I’m going to call their asses out, and I don’t give a damn what gender they sleep with.
polobear
If having a different opinion or disagreeing with someone is “intolerant” then everyone is intolerant to some degree, just like everyone is ignorant to some degree unless you know everything; then you are totally ignorant!
Alexa
Chris Crain always was an idiot, and that article does nothing to change my mind.
As I said in another thread yesterday, Republicans ought to understand and appreciate people boycotting them more than anyone. They are completely free to support whoever they like, and other people are completely free to spend their money elsewhere because of it.
hells kitchen guy
Chris Crain’s still around?
Jason
I think the gay community is absolutely insane regarding their intolerance on this issue. We do have a lot more going on in our lives besides Gay Marriage. I voted for the last 20 years straight Democrat on the Gay issue alone and this year I sat down to outline my stance on some of the issues and the majority of my views are best supported by the Republicans. Additionally, I send letter after letter to my Senators and Congressmen to voice my position as their constituent and the only decent reply I have received was from our one Repub (who I still won’t vote for) but the Dems are just fucking mouth pieces for that bitch running the congress and the moron running the senate. So yes I am voting Republican. Here are a few of my positions; I suggest you look at your total view and you just might find you’re not as Democrat as you think.
1) Economy: I want to see Bush’s tax cuts remain. Obama wants to give money to people that don’t even pay taxes; that is socialism. I want to see us start drilling for oil wherever it exists in our country. Begin loosening the restriction of Coal fired and Nuclear powered electrical power Plants. Reduce spending to get the dollar back up. I certainly don’t subscribe to Obama’s stand on Social Security. He wants to take one of my last tax breaks away by increasing the income level that SS is taxed on and I am very much in favor of Privatization of Social Security. If it is a wealth transfer mechanism via taxes then call it taxes. If it is, what it was intended to be, a national pension plan then allow me to get more of it back and allow me to pass it on from generation to generation.
2) Gay Rights: In the last 20 years the general attitude has changed 1000% since Clinton brought this to the forefront. Gay Marriage; don’t care about it but believe Civil Unions are imperative. Go after the most egregious and easy issue; recognition of at least Civil Unions in the tax code. There hasn’t actually been one national law that takes away rights passed under Bush as much as I feared at 1am on a Tuesday in November of 2000. Both McCain and Obama are placating their base nothing positive or negative will result from either one’s Presidency.
3) National Security: I want a president that is willing to go to war with Iran should they make inroads toward acquisition of a nuclear weapon. I want a president that makes it very clear that any nation that has any involvement with the use of any WMD in the U.S. will cease to exist. Put the responsibility on the Arab nations to manage their own crazies or we will destroy every man, woman and child in your nation. MADD worked for close to 50 years; use it again. Do not leave Iraq until the job is done and make sure we establish long term bases in Iraq.
4. Health Care: Make sure every child in this country has some level of basic health insurance. Do something to make health insurance more affordable but certainly not a nationally administered system for adults; costs too much.
5. Immigration: McCain, Clinton and Obama suck regarding this. Do not allow amnesty. Start enforcing our current laws and make it impossible to get a job in this country if you are here illegally and they will go home on their own.
6. Trade: Start requiring all nations that want favored status to implement the same labor laws and regulations that our companies here face. Level the playing field. Eliminate or significantly reduce the Corporate Income tax by tying it to domestic employment. This did wonders for places like Ireland to increase their manufacturing base.
Kevin M
Kudos to you, Jason! I love that you lay out your logic on issues (plural) that are important to you and that you recognize trade-offs between different choices. Bravo!
I may not agree with everything you say, though I find myself matching up with a fair bit of your reason. This is the kind of thoughtful voting that makes democracy work best for all people.
And you didn’t have to resort at all to demonizing or name-calling. Huh. How ’bout that?
Ston
Look this issue is NOT about being intolorant about people who want to vote GOP. The issue is that they are supporting a candidate who specifically is opposed to gay rights. He was in commercials in AZ supporting a constitutional ban on gay marraige in that state. So gays aren’t hating people for voting repubican they are angry that some are specifically supporting somebody who is trying to attack them and their lives. If say…..Giuliani had won the republican nod I don’t think you would see the same venom considering he had in the past spoken favorabley about marraige and civil unions and appeared in several gay pride parades etc…. So attacking gays for supporting McCain is more like getting agry at your friend for supporting a City Council member who supports taking your house away and giving the land to a developer. It’s somebody directly attacking you. That is the issue, it’s a shame the NYPost writer couldn’t or wouldn’t see that.
Vicente Fox
the majority of my views are best supported by the Republicans.
Pro-torture.
Pro-massive deficits.
Anti-worker.
Anti-environment.
Anti-gay.
Anti-choice.
Gee, I see what you mean.
Berdie
Let me say that I dont think there is a single issue that Democratic and Republican candidates agree more uniformly on then gay marriage. The idea that somehow a Democrat administration would be far more amenable to gay marrige – and all the recognition, love and rights that come along with it – is one of the most successful hoaxes of my life. Enough already.
The truth is that Rudy Giuliani was the most pro-gay candidate in the run up to the primaries. It’s true – even if certain people don’t WANT to believe it becuase he identifies as a Republican. He was pro-gay well before it was fashionable – employing openly gay people in important posts. Don’t like it because he’s a Republican? Fine. But don’t believe it? That’s your problem. The reality remains.
hells kitchen guy
^^^ So what was Richardson and Kucinich? Chopped liver??
Jenna's Bush
So what was Richardson and Kucinich? Chopped liver??
Facts mean nothing to Republicans. Remember, the are all about faith. If they believe it to be so, then it is.
Berdie
HKG –
I give you Kucinich – to the extent anyone considered him a viable candidate. But point taken.
As far as Richardson – who does not support gay marriage and has fumbled a few times on these issues – notably calling gays “faggots” – it’s at the every least debatable as to how much of a friend he is to the gay community.
Jenna’s Bush…I am neither Republican nor religious in any way at all. Perhaps it’s you – not me – who relies on faith to dissuade yourself from even considering a legitimate counterpoint that, gasp, breaks from the partisan line.
CHURCHILL-Y
“having a different opinion or disagreeing with someone is “intolerant””
No. That is Democracy, discourse, thinking for one’s self without being a sheep. Kirchick’s point and what the Obamatons want to distort for their own political gains and not out of genuine GLBT concerns is how coercive and childish the name calling tactics of those within our community who have a different political affiliation is. How having diversity is not cause for vilification because in the end it only makes our struggle for equality much weaker (if one where we to see it solely on the basis of civil rights) if we do but instead how it is a fundamental principal visible to anyone who attends a Pride parade. Diversity (even in the political realm) and not absolutism(as those in the Obama camp want to enshrine throughout the Nation) is the pillar of our community that if honored in the end will guide us to the equality which we seek.
Juanita de Talmas
Those making $112,000 or less would actually get a bigger break from Obama than McCain. McCain is running mendacious ads about Obama’s desire to “raise taxes,” and it seems a lot of queers are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.
Jenna's Bush
Perhaps it’s you – not me – who relies on faith to dissuade yourself from even considering a legitimate counterpoint that, gasp, breaks from the partisan line.
I’m not the one spouting nonsense like “I dont think there is a single issue that Democratic and Republican candidates agree more uniformly on then gay marriage.”
Berdie
Jenna’s Bush…
Enlighten me. What’s nonsensical about that statement? If recent memory serves – unless I am missing something – from Clinton to Kerry to Gore to Obama – they all say the same thing: Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Explain to me where I am going astray…I’m always willing to listen.
Landon Bryce
The reaction to Crutchley is emotional rather than logical. Crutchley takes tons of money from gay men and has given some of it someone who seeks our oppression. That’s a fair thing to be angry about. Kirchick and Crain have suffered similar anger for championing Republicans and conservative causes. Of course they will be on Crutchley’s side here. Of the gay men who know any of these names, only a tiny minority do not have contempt for them. Crain has made a career out of whining about this and attacking others for having the temerity to make choices more moral and less selfish than his own.
Others have pointed out that it is improper to compare sexual orientation, which is an intrinsic element of identity, and political action, which stems from personal choices. I will add that these writers seem to believe that the gays who object to their politics would not object if they were straight. But since 1980, the Republican party has had a single agenda: selfishness. Republicans have convinced themselves that it is not immoral to think only of themselves while governing and to harm the less fortunate in order to benefit the most powerful.
Those who support economic policies that have resulted in a radical redistribution of wealth, placing more and more in the coffers of fewer and fewer people, have no moral footing to stand on. Those who care for the security of their own nations but not about the security of people in other parts of the world are less odious, but only a little less selfish.
Many gay men are very selfish. A few are affluent and personally benefit from ecomomic policies that are destroying the longterm stability of the USA. People who do what is best for themselves even though it is inarguably horrible for most people, and continue to do so despite having other legitimate choices, are bad people. That means that all Republicans are either too foolish or ignorant to see what their party is doing, too selfish to care about anyone but themselves, or too supersitious to trust that society can change for the better.
Jason
Landon,
I have always believed in the rule of misery. There is a finite amount of misery in the world; it can be neither created nor distroyed only moved around. So my goal is to push as much of it away from myself and family and ultimately my fellow countrymen so if that means some other group other than Americans get heaps of misery; so be it. I of course am saying this in jest; kind of.
blake
OK, anyone who believes in “oosening the restriction of Coal fired and Nuclear powered electrical power Plants” is an absolute idiot!
Do you even know why there are “restrictions” and how important they are? Coal burning plants are restricted from dumping mercury into the atmosphere. Mercury is a deadly neuro-toxin. The restrictions on coal-burning plants prevent deaths from lung cancer, also.
As for restrictions on nuclear power plants. You really are clueless. Nuclear power plants produce highly toxic, radioactive waste. Where do you think that waste is stored? What restrictions would you remove that are in place today?
And privatizing social security? Get real! Ask all of those seniors who lost their savings when the stock market crashed how they feel about that. A retirement savings plan should be about diversity. Putting all of your savings in the stock market, as Republicans want, makes no sense.
Finally, it’s no more intolerant of gays to repudiate McCain supporters than for any oppressed people to decry members of their group who support wrong-doers of their people.
Landon Bryce
Jason:
Malthus was objectively proved wrong by the reform movements that moved us from the industrial revolution to the modern era, so it makes no sense to use him to justify yourself, even in jest.
Scott Berwitz
Landon –
Let me be one to say thank you for your analysis – one that only proves the point that those who stray from the party line – even if in only specific instances – are vilified by those who never do break the partisan line.
For if the “single agenda” of the Republican party is “selfishness,” and they “think only of themselves while governing and to harm the less fortunate in order to benefit the most powerful” and “Republicans are either too foolish or ignorant to see what their party is doing, too selfish to care about anyone but themselves, or too supersitious to trust that society can change for the better”…who can blame anyone who would instantly criticize anyone who even remotely agrees with anything a Republican might say? Remember, this isn’t some Republicans- it’s all of them…all of the time.
Thank you for clearing that up. You’ve made the world a much simpler place for anyone who doesn’t have the confidence or intellectual capacity to analyze an issue for themselves. REpbulican: Always selish, immoral, trampling on the poor to make themselves rich. Democrat: Good…or at least good intentions. Simple and easy.
There…no reason for one to think for him/herself the next time a contentious issue arises.
Thank you.
Landon Bryce
Scott:
I am no fan of the Democratic party. I am the first to say that the only thing the Democrats seem to have been trying to do for the last twenty years is offer a more moderate version of the Republican agenda. Shame on them.
Wouldn’t your message have been more effective if you had been able to point out one point where I were wrong instead of merely mocking me for pointing out the pbvious?
Wouldn’t the Republicans have more credibility if they ever put the interests of the less powerful over the interests of the more powerful, just because it was the right thing to do?
Berdie
Landon –
From the person who put up a post making sweeping, negative generalizations about millions and millions of people without taking the time to specify a particular point, and no doubt ignoring countless points that would break your larger argument like glass on a marble floor, it’s somewhat remarkable to be told how much stronger MY post would have been if I responded with specifics.
Beside that, it’s not a very difficult thing to do. Your post says all Republicans are selfish, immoral, trample on the poor, are foolish, ignorant, etc. Logically, all I have to do is show you one who isn’t. More forcefully, I would have to show you that while your post is a textbook case of “poisoning the well” – it is also incredibly ignorant. Even anecdotally, it doesn’t hold up. My father is fully accepting (and was from teh moment I came out) of my homosexuality. He is intelligent, gives quite a bit of his income to charity and has for over 30 years, and his own family is living proof that you can come from nothing and be successful in this country. He is also a Republican.
There is too much to list on a post on Queerty – but I’ll give you two random things to ponder. When asked about why she is a Republican, Condoleezza Rice explained that her father switched over at one point. Why? “”My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did.”
Another thing to think about. Our current president has given more to helping Africa than any President ever before him. He has made it a cornerstone of American policy. He has provided billions of dollars to their cause. He has met with, aided and accompanied activists like Bono and Bob Geldof in helping that desperate continent. Now – I don’t generally like the president – but nonetheless, he deserves immense credit for this – credit he has received from Bob Geldof and Bono – not exactly stalwart Republicans themselves. Question: Was it selfishness driving his actions? The dark need to trample on the poor?
These would be things for you to think about, Landon. More broadly, it is never a good idea to say – “These 50 million people? Yah, they’re selfish. Well, I don’t know them, but they’re Republicans, so obviously they’re all horrible.”
Stupid, simple, anti-intellectual and false. Arguments don’t get much worse than that.
Jenna's Bush
Democratic Platform:
“We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation,
and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive
bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all
attempts to use this issue to divide us.”
Republican Platform:
“We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that
fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor
bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to
marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is
best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father
anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the
accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special
union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.”
Yep, no difference…
polobear
churchhill-y
funny in your response you imply anyone who wants to vote for Obama is a sheep and you must be on another level intellectually because you are going to vote for Mccain (who may have been a “maverick” in the past but has been a good rep boy recently).
Well I have voted for Reagan and Bush sr then broke out of the Matrix….so can you!
In a democracy true all voices should be heard but majority rules so intolerance can still prevail
Jason
Blake,
You are incredibly ill-informed on just about every one of your points. My first question if we don’t use Oil, Coal or Nuclear what do you advise we use? Please don’t suggest Solar. Solar is a great adjunct to our current power production technologies but it is a long way from a solution that can provide large amounts of the U.S power needs. Our grid operates on a premise that it will provide power 99.999% of the time; that is around 5 min a year down time; that means a plant is built for the worst hour of the year not the average. The problem with Solar or Wind is storage; we can provide plenty of power with the technology but without storing that power it won’t necessarily be around when we need it. Currently we don’t have a way to store millions and millions of watts without the use of copious numbers of batteries; another potential environmental problem. Because of that 99.999% requirement we would still have to have oil, coal or nuclear power plants at the same size we have today to provide power during the night and during the days the sun doesn’t show up. So, as oil is our most powerful and mobile fuel it should be used for transportation only and our static needs should be provided by “Clean Coal Technologies†and “Modern Nuclear Technologyâ€.
With regards to Privatization of SS. All I saw in your tirade was that we don’t want the money in the stock market. When did Privatization mean Stock Market? Privatization means having your contributions going to a government run annuity that you own and can control with extreme restrictions on the investment opportunities. If you maxed your contributions from the time you were 30 till 65 and you received a very conservative return of 5%. You would have a little over $1million in the system; subtract some to help those less fortunate but at the end of the day your retirement would be far superior to the crappy system today. I can guarantee that you won’t see $1million in benefits today. Additionally, there would be ways to pass a portion to your heirs. Actually give the future recipients a head start. As to the evils of the stock market; the stock market has been the best investment you could have made over the last 60 years. It has averaged over 11% during that time so it’s not as evil as you suggest.
Landon Bryce
Dear Scott:
It is frustrating when people attack my points without reading them. In 1952, the Republican party had not been cynically co-opted by the very bad people who have controled it since the Reagan revolution. Moderate Republicans were right on many things before they were hunted out of existence. The majority of my family, who are also good people, are Repblicans who have watched the party move further and further from the values they thought it represented. They fall into the category I identified in my post as superstitious. They are Christians who intellectually understand that white men don’t need to run everything, but it feels wrong to them when that is not the case.
Please look at the extent to which aid in Africa has been linked to abstinence only HIV prevention programs and other aspects of the Republican ideological agenda before you promote that as an example of unselfishness.
I did not mean to say that all Republicans were completely evil, as even the most cursory attention to what I actually wrote would have made clear.
Berdie
Landon –
It is equally frustrating when people do not take responsibility for their own words…
Please re-read your initial post and the aspersions you toss out about “all Republicans” and get back to me.
It shouldn’t take more than a “cursory” look to see what you directly said and implicitly imply about the entire party and anyone who identifies with it.
Landon – please refer to comments made by Bob Geldof – who, along with Bono, is perhaps the most visible person raising awareness and promoting aid for Africa. And while some of the funds Bush has distributed to Africa have been for abstinence (something I do not generally agree with but in a continent wracked with AIDS in which condoms have not helped curb the spread of it, it’s at least a plausible educational option) the majority of the money has NOT been for anything of the like. He has developed financial funds and courted international investment in Africa’s collective economy, he has given money to provide medicine, doctors, etc. In your zeal to find something inherently evil with anything a Republican does – even when funding and providing medicine and investment to Africa to an extent no other world leader has – you still come up short. I know it might really pain you to say it – but maybe, maybe he actually has been waging a good fight in Africa.
But why let truth get in the way of a self-serving, self-perpetuating, self-righteous ideology?
I did bring up Rice’s father’s move to the Republican party in the 50’s and you clearly said that your problem with Republicans begins in 1980. It was just a point to be made…Rice is still a Republican and doesn’t see 1980 as a change…in fact, she officially became Republican in the 80’s. It was something for you to think about.
Perhaps you can address these points before making blanket, offensive, false statements. Perhaps you can find the integrity to either stand by your words or take some of it back (or add nuance) instead of baselessly accusing me of not having read your post carefully enough.
Republicans (all of them) according to you are selfish, immoral, think nothing of harming the less fortunate to make themselves richer and more powerful…they are foolish, ignorant and have one single agenda item: selfishness. Now you offer this qualifier that not ALL Republicans are COMPLETELY evil. How very generous and nuanced of you. See, had you not offered that, a “cursory” look at your post might have led people to believe you thought all Republicans are horrible and evil. But now it’s very clear you don’t…you just think they’re selfish, immoral, foolish people who hurt the weak to fortify the strong.
Woops…my mistake.
Landon Bryce
Dear person who changes his name with every post,
You are impressed with what Bush has done in Africa and do not see the link between repressive sexual teachings and the spread of AIDS. You do not think using economic aid to bully other nations into following the teachings of the president’s religion is a legitimate example of selfishness.
Okay. I disagree.
I take it that you are a Republican whose feelings have been hurt by running into someone who holds the archaic belief that selfishness is immoral, and who does not back down from holding the Republican party responsible for putting the interests of the very rich over the interests of everyone else. I cannot apologize for using sweeping rhetoric in a comment on a blog. I do not think anything I said was remotely inaccurate or unfairly stated.
It is impossible to deny that Republican policies have resulted in a concentration of power and money in the hands of fewer and fewer people, so the content of what I have written cannot be argued with. You”re still mad, though, so you keep dealing with straw men and piling invective on me. You aren’t hurting my feelings and you’re not being very convincing.
Person who changes his name with every post
Landon –
You are indefatigable. I am not the only one impressed with what Bush has done in Africa. You are rock sure that the entirety of his time, effort, attention and budget towards helping that desperate continent is to go on some Christian crusade. You are wrong, but are too blinded by ideology to see that. It’s a shame. Becuase there are many others – far more knowledgeable on the topic than you and I – who don’t agree with Bush’s politics but yet are at least capable of giving credit where credit is due. You are not one of them…and that’s a shame.
Without giving any substantive response to anything I have written or the very real issues with your own posts, you suddenly call me a “Republican” (not true) – and talk about my feelings being hurt. It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic. But at least this time you have the guts to stand by your comments…ALL Republicans put the interests of the rich over the poor. Easy, simplistic, anti-intellectual and false…but you continue to do it.
What gets me is that you seem like an intelligent guy…but yet you continue to put ideology above truth. And you make obvious logical fallacies in sweeping statements. What’s more, you demand specifics from others without every providing one yourself – though you have had plenty of opportunties in this exchange.
YOu do nobody any favors by reducing the world – and the political climate – to easy buckets that afford yourself a reason not to think. Why consider an idea or legislation from anyone who you know OFFHAND is a rotten, selfish, immoral person. PERFECT. Now you don’t have to think about it, consider it, or in any way analyze it.
As far as anger, invective, hurt feelings, etc…I can assure you that none of this accurately describes me or my intentions…any more than they describe yours. You’re wrong again – but at this point – this shouldn’t come as a surprise.
I have made quite a few points you have not responded in any real way to. Now you’re talking about me just trying to hurt your feelings but I am not succeeding. There must be a point when you write this drivel when even you must crack a smile at how absurd it’s all becoming.
Landon Bryce
Dear PWCHNWEP,
Yes, I do see absurdity, but it is with you repeatedly screaming at me, “WHAT YOU SAID IS NOT TRUE 100% OF THE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
It is impossible to make your case by saying, not that what I wrote is untrue but that is not COMPLETELY true. Grown ups understand that nothing is true 100% of the time. A comment on a blog is not a deposition and is not reasonably held to a legalistic standard of truth. I honestly do believe that, in general terms, it is impossible to be a Republican and be neither misguided nor inexcusably selfish. I know enough about probability, however, to understand that reality always varies from absolutes. I assume everyone else knows the same thing. I am not interested in participating in an argument over basic conversational rhetoric.
It is legitimate to counter your praise of Bush’s relief in Africa with the fact the this administration consistently links humanitarian aid to an ideological agenda. Apparently, you think that this is not the case because it is not ALWAYS true. Very few things are always true, but Bush believes that he was chosen by God to be president. I am sure he does not consider his actions to be selfish. I’m sure he believes he is saving souls as well as lives. That does not make his actions unselfish.
I see no other points in your messages to which I could respond. Bush gave aid to Africa. You are upset by my level of overstatement. Condi Rice’s dad became a Republican in 1952.
What other points do you think you have made?