TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 9:38 AM
January 08, 2009 | 9:22 AM
January 08, 2009 | 9:00 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 5:09 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
02.11.2008
Democratic Gay-Baiting? You Don't Say...

Here is a radio advertisement running right now in Kentucky, paid for by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. AFSCME is one of the largest unions in America and a major Democratic Party ally, and stands to gain much from the public trough should the Democrats take the White House and increase their majorities in Congress substantially. The ad quite clearly raises the allegation that Mitch McConnell was discharged from the military for homosexual conduct some 40 years ago. AFSCME thinks this is very important for the voters of Kentucky to understand.

In case that advertisement is too subtle, take a look at this flyer, which allegedly has been circulated to 150,000 people in the state:



There really isn't much to say about these attacks other than that they ought to put a damper on the commonly accepted narrative that it's only conservatives who have utterly debased themselves and their brand in this election. These attacks on McConnell are among the most despicable smears of the 2008 elections -- if not the most despicable -- but something tells me that the perpetually outraged commentators bemoaning the tactics of the GOP smear machine and John McCain's sale of his soul to it won't let the above disrupt their storyline of liberal high-mindedness vs. the "ugly mob" that is contemporary conservatism (that the complaints about campaign decorum so often come from people who compare those with whom they disagree to Nazis makes their assertions all the more unserious). 

With prominent exceptions (the inquisition over Mark Foley and the anti-gay witch hunt that followed, Bill Clinton's touting his support for the Defense of Marriage Act on Christian radio stations), gay-baiting has been a Republican, rather than a Democratic, tactic. It is to John McCain's enormous credit -- not that you would ever hear it from his newfound critics in the media, who turned on him once he went from being a thorn in the side of Republicans to the one man standing in the way of Barack Obama's becoming president -- that anti-gay rhetoric has not played a role in this election. Too bad Democrats are picking up the slack.
 
--James Kirchick 

 

Posted: Sunday, November 02, 2008 6:30 PM with 26 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ndmackenzie said:

The heading was enough to tell me this was a Kirchick post.

November 2, 2008 7:01 PM

guptatomic1 said:

Isn't this the same state where the GOP, in '04, spread vicious rumors about the Dem candidate for Senate who ran against Bunning?  That he was single (and you know what -that- means), that he had an "olive" complexion and a "foreign" name -- he might as well have been Arab camel jockey (and you know what -that- means)!  Jamie, while your point that all-war-is-ugly is well-taken, might it not be, in this particular case, that the people of Kentucky, Democrat or Republican, are inbred morons?  [Sorry, I grew up in Indiana -- Kentucky was the only state we felt justified looking down at.]

November 2, 2008 7:14 PM

roidubouloi said:

Kirchick,

You are a one-man ugly mob.  It is to McCain's "enormous credit" that he hasn't engaged in gay-baiting, only race-baiting, xenophenobia, crude attempts to associate Obama with terrorism and treason?  What is wrong with you man?  Are you a babbling idiot, a loathsome troll, or both?  You talk as though it is the right of Republican's to indulge in hate speech and that they are to be applauded for refraining.  Get you head out of your ass.  You disgrace yourself.

November 2, 2008 7:14 PM

propositionjoe said:

This is a repulsive ad, and it's inane to boot. However, to suggest that there is some moral equivalence among Democrats and Republicans regarding gay bashing is even more repulsive and even more inane. Yes, Bill Clinton signed DOMA, and that was wrong. Yes, Bill Clinton settled for "don't ask, don't tell," and that was wrong. That said, who is the Gavin Newsome of the GOP? What red state approves of gay marriage? I credit McCain for not making gay bashing central to his campaign, but what kind of half-assed praise is that? The fact is that homosexuality is an identity, not a choice, that should trigger 14th Amendment protections. Something tells me that Republicans might be a tad more resistant to this idea than Democrats.

November 2, 2008 7:16 PM

icarusr said:

He he - actually, the interesting thing is that Kirchick does not actually deny the allegations.  Not that gays should not get elected from Kentucky, but that hypocritical self-important assholes should be exposed for what they are, gay or straight.  

But generally, I agree with Roid.  Get your head out of McCain's ass.

November 2, 2008 7:19 PM

dabeffert said:

"The heading was enough to tell me this was a Kirchick post"

Yup. Of course the ad is despicable, but it isn't usual. Kirchick, of course, is way too happy about.  

November 2, 2008 7:33 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

kirchick, oh poor poor kirchick...

yes, this ad is pretty despicable and the Kentucky Democrat[s] who produced it should be roundly criticized. Now, that was easy to say but oh no, you have to go on and indict the entire Democratic Party and then, by that unique kirchickian magic, immunize the totality of McCain's sanctioned despicable ads, insinuations and smears, because of this one ad.  

Now wonder tnr has reduced you to counting paper clips and fetching coffee. Because of some kind of weird ideological and temperamental flaw, you cannot see something bad, blame the appropriate person or persons without going nutters with partisan anti liberal, anti Democratic overkill.

And yes, as soon as I saw the lede, I knew that the erstwhile boy wonder had slipped by the adults and posted yet another characteristic pile....

November 2, 2008 7:33 PM

simon greenwood said:

The lack of gay-baiting doesn't seem to be a McCain thing, it looks more like it's a party directive.  Apparently it wasn't polling as well as in 04 or it just seemed redundant with most states having already banned gay marriage but for whatever reason the GOP has largely moved on.  There are things McCain deserves credit for, but this seems to be more an issue of party strategy than personal virtue.

November 2, 2008 7:37 PM

dabeffert said:

Also Jamie, I have to admit, I find it pretty disgusting of you to be so sensitive to slights against gays and jews, but pretty indifferent to others' plights. I guess that is pretty typical of a lot of conservatives. All for freedom and keeping the govt out of their lives unless of course they have a special needs child, then the govt should do something etc. Same with you, indifferent to the poor, working class, and minorities, but boy if someone says something about gay people, then, well, then you unleash the dogs of war. Now I probably agree with you 100% on gay issues and anti-semitism (though not Israel), but you know, you might want to extend your compassion beyond yourself.

November 2, 2008 7:40 PM

WoodyBombay said:

Has Kirchick made a single post on the conservative anti-gay forces at work in California?

November 2, 2008 8:00 PM

Androscoggin said:

Kirchick's logic:

If a Democratic-leaning union runs a homophobic radio ad against a Republican senator in Kentucky, and John McCain doesn't use gay baiting rhetoric against Obama, we should: (a) warmly congratulate McCain for his restraint; (b) preemptively condemn as hypocritical any of those "perpetually outraged" (i.e., oversensitive) observers who have been troubled by the tone of Palin rallies; and (c) conclude that it's not only conservatives but also some significant number of liberals who have "utterly debased themselves and their brand" in this election.

I started to write a long comment where I complained about the fact that Kirchick can't write a single paragraph without veering off into an unhinged attack on a straw man -- some obscure leftist blogger or loopy neo-Marxist academic who Kirchick decides is representative of mainstream liberal opinion -- but I think his line of thought here pretty much speaks for itself.  I can't believe TNR employs this hack.

November 2, 2008 8:43 PM

rozenson said:

Guilt by association. High-class staff, Jamie. You know as well as I do that you're much more welcome as a Democrat than as a Republican. Androscoggin is on the money.

It is also very telling that you decided to say absolutely nothing about Prop 8 in California, but waited until you could finally -- FINALLY -- find some organization with liberal ties that made homophobic comments.

November 2, 2008 9:03 PM

jobeek2 said:

1) That ad is despicable. Shame on them.

2) This is one of the more incoherent Kirchik posts yet, and that's saying something.

In the broader scheme of things, gay-baiting by a Democratic-leaning union is a lot worse than the stylisms of some small-time blogger on TNR, so on balance I guess it's good this post is there ... but imagine how pointed a post a saner person would have made about it.

November 2, 2008 9:27 PM

dylanposer said:

Woody,

Good call.   The No on 8 website was hacked the other day, disrupting the ability of Californians to donate for many crucial hours.  Qualcomm stadium in San Diego to host many tens of thousands of Evangelicals who are to fast and pray all day so that God in Heaven awakens from his slumber to come down and cast a ballot against gay marriage  

And all remains quiet on Kirchcik front.  

November 2, 2008 9:33 PM

dylanposer said:

Woody,

Good call.   The No on 8 website was hacked the other day, disrupting the ability of Californians to donate for many crucial hours.  Qualcomm stadium in San Diego to host many tens of thousands of Evangelicals who are to fast and pray all day so that God in Heaven awakens from his slumber to come down and cast a ballot against gay marriage  

And all remains quiet on Kirchcik front.  

November 2, 2008 9:33 PM

Hungarian Great Bela Tarr said:

So, I guess I'll be the guy who asks . . . is the claim in the flyer true?

Heh -- I'm just curious.

November 2, 2008 9:41 PM

rannpb said:

"He he - actually, the interesting thing is that Kirchick does not actually deny the allegations.  Not that gays should not get elected from Kentucky, but that hypocritical self-important assholes should be exposed for what they are, gay or straight."  

This really is the most despicable ad of the campaign. As for the "this is relevant because it shows McConnell is a hypocrite" argument: I don't buy it. That might have been true for Foley and Craig, where there was basically indisputable evidence of their - ahem - transgressions, but not of McConnell. This ad is all innuendo. Why should anybody have to deny allegations that are based on pure, wild conjecture? Why do you assume this is true?

November 2, 2008 9:52 PM

Rhubarbs said:

I think Kirchick owes it to his readers at this point to tell us what his position is on outing closeted politicians who engage in anti-gay politics and lawmaking.

(While he's at it, Kirchick could maybe expound a little on why it's OK to express bigotry against Arabs but not gay people. Or at least, why it's OK for conservative Jewish gay porn stars to be open anti-Arab bigots. Does Kirchick perhaps believe that being an Arab is a lifestyle choice, but being gay is not?)

Also, the story does not support the headline. The form, "Statement? You don't say ..." implies that the condition asserted in the first sentence is in fact highly usual. In this case, for the headline to be true, therefore, Kirchick needed to establish that Democratic gay-baiting was the usual, if perhaps largely ignored or denied, state of affairs. He did no such thing -- for the simple reason that Democratic gay-baiting is in fact uncommon -- and so we're left with a headline that is essentially a lie. Which makes it a perfect Kirchick headline, but as journalism is practiced by people with any degree of integrity, it's a crap headline.

Finally, perhaps it's time for a Kirchick-based parlor game. Finish the sentence:

"It is to John McCain's enormous credit that ..."

November 2, 2008 10:08 PM

bwpatt61 said:

All in love is fair?  In an ideal world who'd care about Senator McConnell's 'alleged' sexuality anyway.  Not to defend the ads but it's understandable that AFSCME may be piling on because of his wife Elaine - the most anti-union Secretary of Labor in recent history.  She and Bush just recently issued a decree making it much harder for Federal Employees to join a union - the AFSCME.

So this is political hardball by AFSCME in the real world - in a very socially conservative state with a strong labor union history.  Where McConnell and his wife don't really fit.

The 'Village People flyer' is so poorly done (was this AFSCME?) and the AFSCME radio ad is in the end very nasty.  This may actually help save McConnell's ass - again.  

November 2, 2008 11:29 PM

williamyard said:

The greatest anti-gay slur in this campaign was John McCain's selection of the lunatic Christian Palin as his running mate. In the fundamentalist Christian worldview, as long as there are homosexuals there are niggers.

Any homosexual--i.e., a human being whose actions are regarded as filth by someone seeking the Vice Presidency--should praise each and every one of us who are doing our best to ensure that her quest fails. Conversely, even a whiff of praise for the man who chose her reveals a such deep sense of self-loathing on the part of the author that I can think of no proper way to respond other than, simply put, pity.

November 2, 2008 11:35 PM

JEFF FREY said:

Maybe Kirchick is working his way down to the level of National Review Online? Seriously, his belonging to a political movement that tends to demonize people like him because of their sexual orientation must take a toll on the poor guy. It bothers me when Democrats make stupid arguments or attacks that run counter to the principles and values of the party (like this flyer). If the Democrats commonly demonized college professors, or scientists in general, or Americans with German last names, it would require a pretty serious amount of compartmentalization to deal with the fact that my own "side" would trot me out as a bogeyman to scare up votes. That has to take its toll. I have always wondered why gay Republicans wanted to identify with a party that hates them and embraces the denial of equal rights to them if not outright persecution. I still don't understand why they do it, but it has to do some damage.

November 3, 2008 12:08 AM

whalt said:

The funny thing is I have seen this ad condemned in several liberal and Democratic leaning blogs and hardly seen it mentioned in any conservative ones and even those generally condemn the "hypocrisy" not the actual homophobia. But  Kirchik's perpetual sense of outrage at liberal's can't be fueled by such inconveniences. No doubt this whole incident can be pinned on the latent anti-semitism of the union movement, Kentucky Democrats, someone, anyone.

November 3, 2008 1:51 AM

icarusr said:

Rann: An attack ad that is untrue is significantly worse than an attack ad that is true, I think we can agree about this.  And an attack ad that is true is far more important when it exposes a hypocrite than when it simply attacks a known quality of a man.  It is a given in these pages that such attack ads have or ought to have no place in political discourse; and this is true whether the object is gay, black, Arab, Muslim or Martian.

All innuendo?  True.  It takes one line for the author to say, "The ads play on people's fears and, what is more, they are untrue."  Why is it that the author does not say it?  Not because it is self-evident that the allegations are untrue, but because to say this, is to condemn utterly 20 months of campaigning by POWPOW.  McCain has built his entire campaign in this cycle on fears and lies - see what he did to Romney, for one - and so, to attack the ad on either score would be too attack the hero.  So Kirchick uses the only tone he is capable of writing in, which is scornful snideness.

Craig and Foley were caught with their pants down, literally.  If McConnell is gay or has fucked guys - especially in the military - he should be outed, not because all gay politicians should be outed, but because he is the leader of a party singularly hateful to and intolerant of gays.  I have no compunctions, none whatever, in exposing hypocrites and seeing not only their careers but also their personal lives ruined.  Any moral issues I have about playing dirty are resolved when I think of Prop 8 and the thousands of gays who have been dismissed from the military since 1992.

November 3, 2008 7:59 AM

icarusr said:

Rhubs: Actually, think of Fran Drescher in the Nanny, and the title reads correctly.  

November 3, 2008 8:01 AM

Political Animal said:

MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * After McCain's poorly attended rally this morning in Tampa, Florida Gov. Charlie

November 3, 2008 12:02 PM

The Plank said:

This may seem a little old given last night’s historic election, but fairness requires me to post a follow

November 5, 2008 12:08 PM