« Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash | Main | Politics In The Vernacular »

Vast Gay Old People's Conspiracy

Now that word is out that the AARP is a bunch of Army hating fags, surely someone should point out that the president felt pretty damn good about the man-kisser in chief not long ago when Bill Novelli was invited to participate in the Medicare bill signing ceremony and getting appointed to a presiential commission. After the Bernard Kerik fiasco I guess we all got to see that White House vetting procedures aren't what they used to be, but this is ridiculous.

February 22, 2005 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Vast Gay Old People's Conspiracy:

» Gay RRP? from Outside The Beltway
Markos Zuniga spots a rather disturbing ad on the American Spectator website: This is how the Swifties and USA Next are attacking the AARP: Yup, they hate our troops and love gays. This is how they plan on attacking the AARP in their efforts... [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 22, 2005 12:06:06 PM

» Right Wing Tools from QandO
It's worse than I thought. I went digging around the USANext website to see if I could find any basis on which they could claim that the AARP is opposed to US troops and/or advocating gay marriage. [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 22, 2005 12:43:23 PM

» Gay Bashing To Promote Social Security? from The Moderate Voice
Is the new group out to promote the administration's Social Security planning to use gay bashing to promote it?

Americablog says yes...and they offer ... [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 22, 2005 1:01:27 PM

» Does "Conservative Values" Mean Anything? Lying Perhaps? from Gay Orbit
This makes me so angry I don't want to even say anything about it. Doesn't it bother straight-America that conservative organizations play you like this? Note to "Red-State" America: The REAL message here is that these organizations think yo... [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 22, 2005 2:11:49 PM

» A Dialogue in Pictures from Polemic Propaganda
Pictures tend to transcend written thought in many ways, and so, let us embark upon a brief-but-potent history of the present, particularly the fight for Social Security. While Democrats all over have, more than can be expected on any other issue, coal... [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 22, 2005 3:08:48 PM

» Bush II; Day 112: Going after the AARP from Issues Forum
Apparently, the AARP agenda is to hurt the military and promote gay marriage. Who'd a thunk? Well, apparently that's what the right wing thunk now that the AARP is pushing back on Bush's Social Security Phase-Out Plan. Thanks to Daily... [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 23, 2005 6:43:38 PM


Josh Marshall has the next two slime-AARP ads.

I respect Rove's chutzpah in going after AARP this violently right after they helped him out on the Prescription Drug battle, but it's yet one more piece of evidence that it's really important to take these maniacs down at the ballot box in '06.

They're determined to leave absolutely nothing standing in the entire nation that won't kowtow to the GOP. And this behavior will continue until they are punished.

Posted by: Petey | Feb 22, 2005 3:41:40 AM

True. Parliamentary multi-party system with proportional representation looks better every day. Wingnuts have a right to be represented in the government along with other significant groups of radicals, but this is clearly too much.

Posted by: abb1 | Feb 22, 2005 4:51:31 AM

Looks like a Gannon/Gukert ad.

Posted by: Jack | Feb 22, 2005 5:11:35 AM

Mornin' Mornin' all.

Just wanted to leave a general message to MY, and checkout Drum's article on Torture and 24 where he says that maybe the writers are trying to make a point that torture doesn't seem to work so well. In light of MY's posts on 24, I thought he might like to give it a whirl since not all of us can afford HBO.


Posted by: MNPundit | Feb 22, 2005 5:26:08 AM

Isn't William Novelli the guy who wrote the preface to Newt Gringrich's book: "Saving Lives & Saving Money"...? He hardly fits the librul strawman.

I guess this is just another example of what happens when you aren't loyal to the Bush/Rove kingdom.

Posted by: JAL | Feb 22, 2005 7:45:22 AM

I feel like there's some kind of inside joke going on here. The linked article doesn't mention Rove, but everyone here seems convinced that Rove is behind the group. Where is the evidence for that connection?

Posted by: ostap | Feb 22, 2005 8:34:21 AM

This is a joke. But what it is referring to is no laughing matter. The story that Karl Rove has set his sights on AARP with the same group that brought you Swift Boat Vets may end up accomplishing the same outcome. Kerry’s military service – as well as all who received a Purple Heart – has been tainted. AARP may receive irreparable harm.

However, this current story of AARP seems to miss the point. Rove’s brilliance is attacking what appears to be the opposition’s strongest position. This current story seems a cheap shot. Homophobia tends to wane in later years. Old people may not care who is trying to get married.

But of course this may be the first salvo to undermine AARP’s base. Perhaps Rove is trying to convince seniors that AARP has been taken over by liberals. That might explain the anti-military pro-gay marriage message of this campaign.

We must be ever vigilant to what their next move might be. Although not a Rove strategy (at least I don’t think it is), we allowed the right wing fascist to paint MSM as be liberally bias (if only it was), and now it must constantly prove it is not. We allowed the Swift Boat Vets to diminish the record of a combat veteran. Soldiers in Iraq – this could happen to you. Blog for a better America.

Posted by: scou29c | Feb 22, 2005 9:12:00 AM

A Purple Heart indicates that someone was injured in combat by a "weapon wielded by the enemy". Every soldier exposed to combat is exposed to the risk of injury, which is arguably an honorable action worth recognizing, but there's no special distinction in actually getting hurt.

I conclude that tarnishing the reputation of the Purple Heart is no great loss.

Posted by: Matt G. | Feb 22, 2005 10:04:45 AM

worldnetdaily.com had this wierd article about how McClellan, Mehlman, Gurley, and Rove are targetted to get outed with McClellan they got rather specific about what nightclub he liked to hang out at in Austin.

Obviously the first reaction is to just completely dismiss worldnetdaily.com as having no relation to reality but I wonder if maybe all this crap might not be set to blow up in their face. The reporter is one thing, the whole machine being rife with perversion might be something else to the superchurch crowd.

Posted by: Ed Marshall | Feb 22, 2005 10:22:45 AM

I can't keep up with the left. First, they're OK with the gay-bashing, homophobic "outing" of Jeff Gannon. Now they're complaining about an ad about gay marriage? Seems hypocritical.

Or is it just that gay-bashing is OK when done by Daily Kos, but not when done by Republicans?

Posted by: Al | Feb 22, 2005 10:27:37 AM

A Purple Heart indicates that someone was injured in combat by a "weapon wielded by the enemy".

sorry, you're wrong.

Posted by: cleek | Feb 22, 2005 10:32:34 AM

Al's middle name is "Strawman"

Posted by: cleek | Feb 22, 2005 10:33:50 AM

Public figures have no expectation of privacy and anyone who secretly services men for cash while writing anti-gay (real "gay-bashing") propaganda for a political apparatus is obviously a target.

Posted by: Ed Marshall | Feb 22, 2005 10:36:45 AM

Al does have a lot of strawman tendencies, but I am pretty sure that one has to be stalker Al.

Posted by: theCoach | Feb 22, 2005 10:37:21 AM

No, no, theCoach, it ain't Zizka. And I fail to see how it is a strawman agrument. Indeed, I think it is especially relevant to point out lefty hypocrisy about gay-bashing in the comments to a post in which Matthew complains about rightie hypocrisy about gay-bashing... wouldn't you agree? (Wouldn't that be hypocrisy about hypocrisy - meta, meta!)

Posted by: Al | Feb 22, 2005 10:47:13 AM

Al, you idiot, don't you understand the difference between outing someone as gay, and outing them as a male prostitute? No, of course, you wouldn't . . . .

Posted by: rea | Feb 22, 2005 10:51:21 AM

No, it's a total fucking strawman and it's obvious. What you are implying is that the vast majority of gay people support "gay bashing" in the case of outing anti-gay public figures and it's on it's face stupid.

Posted by: Ed Marshall | Feb 22, 2005 10:51:36 AM

I was trying to figure out was going on with the ad. My hypothesis: this is how organize a grassroots movement when you have bucks, and are behind in popular opinion.

I don't mean the lying - which is optional. I mean that start by putting some publicity that is NOT aimed at majority building but at the most radical part of your base. Start by getting some activists, people who will work their hearts and soul out for you. Then you can refine you message and begin majority building.

Yes the right has the churches and a huge grassroots machine. But NRA members are not currently excited about privatization - even those who support it. People in gay baoshing churches are not as thrilled at privatization even those who support it. In other words they need to stir up some hate, even if it is in a small percent of their base to get some troops on the ground. Then they can move out and start their majority building.

Don't know if this is right, but does not seem inherently implausible. If if it is corrrect it means that this is NOT the time for the Democrats to start offering "reasonable" compromises. We need to start mobilizing our own "feet on the ground" over this.

Real email garlpublic and then comcast followed by a dot after that the extension net.

Posted by: Gar Lipow | Feb 22, 2005 10:51:45 AM

And I fail to see how it is a strawman agrument

i'm shocked

Posted by: cleek | Feb 22, 2005 10:53:40 AM


Typical Republican tactics: bash gays, bash veterans like Kerry, then scream the Democrats are doing it. Juvenile rhetorical devices may work with the unwashed electorate Al, but please, don't bring that weak stuff in here.

And the scandal of Jeff Gannon is that he is part of a pattern of dishonest and illegal (as in the case of Armstrong Williams) manipulation of the press, and more largely, a debasement of honest debate, that has characterized this administration so thoroughly that it will be out of office for years before it is fully documented.

Someone in the White House told the Secret Service to allow Gannon in without the normal vetting. His press credentials and drivers license say two different things. This is a major security lapse and needs full investigation. Or else it doesn't, because there was no securtiy lapse and the White House is lying, again.

Posted by: epistemology | Feb 22, 2005 10:58:16 AM

rea, are you a gay prostitute? It takes one to know one.

Posted by: Al | Feb 22, 2005 11:05:27 AM

Gay-bashing is homophobic physical violence. What the good Reverend Fred Phelps does is homophobic hate speech and rhetoric. What the Gay left is doing is just bitchiness. What the left is doing is pointing out hypocrisy. The Family Values crowd would seem to support marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, and casual, anonymous sex for money with anyone you like, gay or straight.

Posted by: DoD | Feb 22, 2005 11:10:55 AM


Gannons access to the WH as a GOP shill is the
most important issue (free press versus
totalitarian propoganda).

The vetting process that allows shills who are
also male prostitutes into the white house
raises issues indicating extremely pre-9/11
security if not a security breach (unless
criminal activity is not a reason to limit
WH access). There is also the blackmail
potential of the whole thing. I don't care
if the president is getting boned by the Bulldog
every night of the week. However, this
administration has capitalized enough on
homophobia that the president may not want
such information to get out. What would he (or
whoever else may have let him in) be willing
to tell to protect his job and reputation?

Posted by: Frebnedzo | Feb 22, 2005 11:11:14 AM

rea, are you a gay prostitute? It takes one to know one.

Now THAT was Zizka...

Epistemology: if what you say is true, we wouldn't have all of this information (including naked pictures!) about Gannon's homosexuality. (Indeed, your post doesn't mention his homosexuality at all - and if what you said was the extent of the attacks against Gannon, they wopuld obviously have nothing to do with this thread.) So, sorry, but, from my perspective, the attacks at Daily Kos (and other lefty sites) on Gannon are primarily gay-bashing.

Accordingly, I think it is perfectly fair to note lefty hypocrisy on gay-bashing when Matthew notes similar righty hypocrisy.

Posted by: Al | Feb 22, 2005 11:13:43 AM

No Al, if he was an openly gay man, in a monogamous gay relationship, doing the job of a professional and credible independent journalist, who also happened to be a member of the log cabin republicans, we wouldn't be here. This is between Bulldog and the gay community, leave the left out of it. But nice try.

Posted by: DoD | Feb 22, 2005 11:19:43 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.