Do I sound a little harsh? Let me explain, graphically, what harsh is. While working as an English teacher in Southern California, I’ll never forget going to an after-school meeting at a high school. A couple of other teachers and I heard someone scream "faggot” a couple times, along with some of the most graphic, stomach turning screams we ever heard. We ran towards the scene of a couple gang banger wannabes hitting a student, who was just thought to be gay, with a baseball bat.
The tough gang-banger wannabes didn’t even have the guts to stay at the scene. They ran away and left us with just the victim who had dark, red blood flowing from his head and stomach. His eyes looked grossly enlarged and his face looked like it was coming off. Luckily, we saved his life. However, that didn’t save him from permanent brain damage. It was further revealed that this kid had been harassed because of his supposed sexuality for months. His complaints to teachers and the principal apparently didn’t mean much, since only having darker skin gave one minority status. Soon afterwards, the school district enforced a “bullying” policy without even addressing the issue of sexuality. You see, even in a supposedly liberal organization such as public education, discrimination is still embraced.
This is the precise reason why self-hating hypocrites, such as Matt Sanchez, should be condemned in the worst way possible. Had Matt Sanchez not aligned himself with the hateful neocons, perhaps he would gain more sympathy. Had Matt Sanchez spoken out about discrimination, and not just against Latinos, he would have my sympathy. Let's not forget that besides the neocons, Matt Sanchez belongs in another discriminatory group, the U.S. Armed Forces, which, besides hating those "evil homosexuals," recruits poor minorities to wage unjust wars on other countries. He will likely be kicked out, but don’t expect him to fight back.
Instead, we will soon see Matt Sanchez claim that even though he was gay, Jesus changed his life. Judging from the comments seen on several blogs lately, Jesus wouldn’t give Mr. Sanchez the time of day.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
While I admire your vehemence and enthusiasm here, I think you kind of missed the point of the whole Matt Sanchez issue and don't really understand how gay Republicans fit in the party.
The result of this is that you just join with the chorus of voices on the left who are piling on Sanchez in what amounts to pure bigotry based on a lot of assumptions about him and the GOP which are dead wrong.
You make the common mistake of assuming that the GOP is a monolithic party where everyone thinks exactly the same, when in fact it's a diverse party which has a number of different groups in it who share only a few key interests in common. You think that the religious right and the Neocons typify the party, so you think everyone in the party is a bible-thumping warmonger, when those two groups actually make up minorities - even tiny minorities in the case of the Neocons - and in fact minorities which represent extremes of the party with relatively little in common.
What you're doing is the equivalent of me saying that all Democrats are jew-hating communists, just because a few prominent members of the party have those two interests.
The truth when it comes to gay Republicans is that the majority of the party doesn't give a rat's ass what their sexual preference is. There are plenty of mainstream, traditional Republicans who support civil unions (including President Bush) and in many cases even gay marriage. There are Libertarian Republicans who are even more pro-gay.
The gay republicans put up with the religious right because they have shared interests on other issues. The religious right tolerates gay republicans because they have common interests on other issues. If you're a gay Republican you've probably decided that your belief in a strong defense, small government and individual liberty mean more to you than any differences you have with the Christian right.
For a comparison consider the Catholics in the Democratic party who think that their belief in social justice, labor unions and opposition to war are more important than their belief that fetuses are people. They're in the same situation as gay Republicans.
As I mentioned earlier you've also got some funny notions about Neocons. The Neocons have very little in common with the religious right. Some of them may be Christians, but the core group are secular Jews and likely even atheists. They are decidedly not known for their religious convictions. In fact, in almost every way they are indistinguishable from the left-wing intellectual elite of the Democrat party, except that they believe in an imperialistic foreign policy - they're stalinists rather than eurosocialists. Many of them actually used to be Democrats. Neocons have no problem with homosexuality. This is why there's no contradiction to Karl Rove being gay, or to Cheney having a gay daughter and not being troubled by it.
The point here when we're talking about Sanchez is that as a pro-war Republican with a military background he may not see any conflict between that and his membership in the GOP and being gay. You don't have to be religious to be a Republican or to find plenty of support in the party. It's quite possible that he's NOT a self-hating hypocrite, because there's plenty of room in the GOP for gay soldiers.
What you and others seem never to quite get about the GOP as a party - putting aside the prejudices of some of the factions - is that the party itself is resolutely NOT prejudiced against any group. The party was built on tolerance and inclusiveness and individualism, and even when some members are personally intolerant, the party frowns on that kind of behavior and it's definitely never a matter of policy.
I could probably go on and on about this, but it's 4am. But boy, you have a lot to learn about Republicans.
Dave
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I dunno, Dave.
I was a Republican once and this fellow Sanchez would have a hard time passing muster in the North Bronx club I belonged to - not because of his sexual preferences - but because he had been a porn star in gay movies and a prostitute.
Sometimes one's choice of employment puts one beyond the pale...
Of course, the party I belonged to was apologizing for Nixon till the day he quit, so that doesn't say much for them either...
3 - daryl d
Five years ago, I could easily understand why someone gay would be a Republican. Not every gay person is a flag burning liberal. Not every gay person believes in many of the useless "social" programs that have been shoved down our throats. Since a lot of gay people make good money, do they really want to see it wasted on socialistic taxes?
But I see a bad trend here. It seems a lot of gay people, such as Matt Drudge, Matt Sanchez, or Mark Foley try to hide what they are by trying to turn into something completely different. And it has been made quite clear, over the past couple years, that if a Gay Holocaust could exist, most Republicans would volunteer to run the gas chambers.
It's quite sad what has become of the Republican party over the past few years because I think the party generally stands for some good things: individual thought (unlike Democrats, who want to always group people by their skin color, et), financial responsibility, etc. But something has gone wrong over the past five years. If someone gay still supports republicans, I truly believe it's the same as someone Jewish supporting Nazis.
4 - Doug Hunter
"that if a Gay Holocaust could exist, most Republicans would volunteer to run the gas chambers."
That comment is way over the line and completely untrue. I'd say their is infortunately a majority who oppose gay marriage (a major weakness), but that's not quite to the level of a nazi death camp. They see a society where marriage and family are becoming replaced with government programs, where people are too selfish to even bother to meet their neighbors, where a person in need sits at home and waits for a check rather than getting real help from a real person.
If the last wave of social 'progress' got them this what will the next bring?
5 - Rene
Can we have a Republican Holocaust? That would be awesome.
6 - Roger Choate
As a generic gay, Mr. Sanchez sounds like the perfect Marine recruiter. After all: in times of peril, marines are expected to put their asses on the line.
7 - Dave Nalle
But I see a bad trend here. It seems a lot of gay people, such as Matt Drudge, Matt Sanchez, or Mark Foley try to hide what they are by trying to turn into something completely different.
Drudge, Sanchez, Foley, Rove, Mehlman, etc. are not trying to deny their gayness, they're just not making an issue of it. They may be technically closeted, but they are not trying to get reprogrammed to be straight or any of theat ridiculous bullshit.
As a rule I think gay Republicans might as well come out of the closet all the way for their own good and the good of the party. It's not going to get them ostracized or reviled by anyone worth their time to bother with.
And it has been made quite clear, over the past couple years, that if a Gay Holocaust could exist, most Republicans would volunteer to run the gas chambers.
I don't know how that's been made clear to you, but it sure isn't clear to me. A majority of the party supports civil unions, and while there may be a significant minority who are kind of uncomfortable with gays while recognizing their rights, the number who are actively hostile to gays is a tiny minority within a very specific subsection of the party. Only the most extreme of the religious right are actively hostile to gays, and they certainly don't speak for the rest of the party.
But something has gone wrong over the past five years. If someone gay still supports republicans, I truly believe it's the same as someone Jewish supporting Nazis.
Interesting that you should make this comparison. I shied away from it in my earlier post, but the fact is that Jews in the Democrat party are very much in the same situation as gays in the GOP. A majority of the Democrat party is hostile to Israel and a vocal minority are actively, virulently anti-semitic. Yet many Jews stick with the party. Pretty much the same situation.
Dave
8 - jaz
#7 - "A majority of the Democrat party is hostile to Israel and a vocal minority are actively, virulently anti-semitic."
show your proof, otherwise it comes across as nothing more than biased partisan bullshit when sweeping, unfounded statements are made such as this
too much bullshit from partisans of both sides utilizing the same techniques as bigots in their agitprop...smearing entire segments of those they oppose with fallacious broad brush strokes
9 - jaz
and for clarification...it's the "majority" statement that requires proof...sure there are idiots in every demographic...but unless you can prove that 51% of all democrats fit the description, then it's just hate...
10 - Nancy
LOL, Roger - that's pretty clever.
11 - zingzing
rove is gay? i missed that one...
remember dave, that israel is a country while jews are a people. i don't support the government of israel all of the time... i think they're one of the bad guys in a bad guy on bad guy fight... but i could care less if they are jews. the republican/democratic divide on israel is political in nature, not racial.
as far as this sanchez guy goes, he can be a republican if he wants, but i think he should distance himself from ann coulter, and if he wants to come out of the closet, i think he should say his piece on the treatment of gay soldiers in the military (policy).
as for the "repubicans presiding over the gay holocaust" bit... that's a bit of a step. republicans, repugnant as some of them are, would probably draw the line at the wholesale murder of american citizens. i would hope. ahh. that felt kind of good to say. a backhanded compliment, if you will.
but... if the neocons are a fringe group within the republican party, how did they get into power? more importantly, because anybody can weasel their way into power, how did they stay in power? if their views are so far out there, why do republicans vote for/tolerate them?
12 - daryl d
I received a pretty nasty email from sanchez himself. I'm pretty sure that its him because its from the same email address that is listed in his blog. I'll try and sum it up: basically, I'm a liberal fraud who can't think for myself. He also stressed that he was NOT gay and that he was living a lifestyle of sin before he wised up. Is that why Alan Colmes discovered he had been doing gay prostitution just three years ago? If someone can find a link to the colmes radio interview and post it, that would be great since I am on my treo now.
13 - Lee Richards
Can anyone deny that Republican candidates and elected leaders have made much political capital over the past twenty years with an over-emphasis on their 'family values', school prayer, posting 10 commandments, faith-based programs, creationism, anti-gay unions, censorship and many other moral judgements and issues?
The party has definitely been willing to portray itself to its adherents--and all voters--as the main advocates of Biblical morality as a basis of American conservatism; Dobson, Falwell & Billy Graham have never been turned away from the White House, and darn few controversial bills that would offend the Christian right are offered by the party.
Of course, not all Republicans agree, but a majority has elected to go along with those who have created this face to march behind, because it has helped them win more often.
If you're going to try to convince people you represent God's favorite political party, you'd better live up to it, or the most appropriate word IS hypocrite.
14 - Dave Nalle
but... if the neocons are a fringe group within the republican party, how did they get into power? more importantly, because anybody can weasel their way into power, how did they stay in power? if their views are so far out there, why do republicans vote for/tolerate them?
The Neocons offer a philosophy on which to base a foreign policy, something which the GOP has traditionally lacked. That makes them appealing as a kind of resource to Republicans who think we need to move away from the traditional, somewhat isolationist GOP foriegn policy. Nixon paved the way with what was essentially a post-cold-war liberal foreign policy and he left behind a generation of Republicans who wanted to play an international role but had no idea how to do it, and the Neocons came in to fill that void. The Neocon message was also appealing to those Republicans who were traditionally pro-military, because it included putting the military to use, which seemed to make sense.
Obviously a lot of Republicans are reconsidering the role they gave to the Neocons pretty seriously. If we get another GOP administration I'd expect to see a return to either an isolationist stance or something more like a Nixonian foreign policy, depending on who gets elected. Nixon's style of constructive engagement wouldn't be a bad thing at all, but I'm not sure we've got any Republican candidates with Nixon's vision. On the other hand none of them seem to be as crazy as Nixon either.
Dave
15 - P. Marlowe
I'm wondering when we're all going to stop making "gay" an issue of any sort...
And Dave, I really don't think Daryl can be blamed for assuming the Republican Party is a monolithic entity. The Republicans en masse erected it. Trying to claim that not all members of the party "agree" with Bush & Co., and the rabid elements, religious or commercial that elected him doesn't hold water. The OVERWHELMING majority of Republicans voted for him and the (then) Republican Congress every step of the way... At least until 2006 when it became apparent even to (some) of them that things were terribly askew.
I'm just amazed at how we all, even the intelligent BCers here can get pulled along into non-issues like Sanchez. I don't blame Daryl for bringing it up but right now the people who REALLY need the spotlights shining on them pray for stories like this...
P. Marlowe
16 - Arch Conservative
The OVERWHELMING majority of Republicans voted for him and the (then) Republican Congress every step of the way..
Sure we did because the only other choice we had John "Vote for me god damn it I'm a fucking war hero" Kerry and there was nooooo way we were gonna go there.
But then again the OVERWHELMING majority of Dems voted for Kerry so that must mean they are a monolithic party too right? And trying to claim that all Democrats do not agree with the extreme left wing elements of their party just doesn't hold any water.
Really....it's quite laughable how people consistently berate the radical elements in the GOP but give the radical elements in the Dem party a pass all the time.
Darryl, this republican can pretty much sum up how he feels about gays and leftists in one sentence.
I'd much rather live next door to a gay republican than a straight leftist Democrat.
17 - P. Marlowe
Dear Arch... You must have me confused with one of the numerous voices in your head.
True, the Dems did vote for Kerry. But a lot of people were simply trying to find some way to not have Bush return to office. I think that has been established here and elsewhere in countless blogs, articles, etc.
And we weren't discussing the radical elements of the Dems here. They certainly present a host of headaches...
But, currently, they don't have our ass over a barrel in Iraq, stealing billions and moving to Dubai, firing federal attorneys simply to pave the way for god only knows what later on, getting us into position to start a war with Iran and still fumbling around here at home, desperately looking for SOME excuse to have another round of culture wars...
P. Marlowe
PS. Arch, follow the instructions on those meds!
18 - JustOneMan
Ruvy..you must have been the first homeless person on welfare ever to be a Republican!
19 - Arch Conservative
"True, the Dems did vote for Kerry. But a lot of people were simply trying to find some way to not have Bush return to office. I think that has been established here and elsewhere in countless blogs, articles, etc."
Conversely many Republicans were simply trying to find a way to keep Kerry out of office. I don't think you can deny this as you do not know what was in the minds of so many million Republicans when they cast their votes. You can't have it both ways Marlowe. If you're going to say you millions of people voting one way represents groupthink while millions of other people voting another way is somehow different...well that's horseshit!
"And we weren't discussing the radical elements of the Dems here. They certainly present a host of headaches.."
Of course you weren't. It's more vogue to discuss the evils of fundamentalist Christians and necons than it is to discuss open border, racial demagouging, tax loving leftists on BC.
"But, currently, they don't have our ass over a barrel in Iraq, stealing billions and moving to Dubai, firing federal attorneys simply to pave the way for god only knows what later on, getting us into position to start a war with Iran and still fumbling around here at home, desperately looking for SOME excuse to have another round of culture wars..."
No but they have a majority in Congress and they have yet as of yet as well as during the whole war stand up to those evil GOP right Marlowe? So one could argue that they are one in the same.
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Try homelessness for a month or two, JOM. You'll get one hell of an education if you survive it.
21 - Dave Nalle
The OVERWHELMING majority of Republicans voted for him and the (then) Republican Congress every step of the way
ALL that tells you, Marlowe, is that the overwhelming majority of Republicans found Bush less horrifying than what the Dems were offering, and I don't find that surprising at all, especially in the case of Kerry who really is a prize idiot.
Dave
22 - Methuselah
Is Matt the one on the left or the right?
23 - Carl
"Drudge, Sanchez, Foley, Rove, Mehlman, etc. are not trying to deny their gayness, they're just not making an issue of it."
Mehlman said he wasn't gay. Sanchez says not only is he NOT gay, but most of the men he escorted for weren't gay either!!
24 - Dave Nalle
Yes, Sanchez clearly has some issues.
As for people in the GOP's reaction to his history of making porn and prostitution, do you think Democrats would be any more happy about that if he was involved with them?
Hey Daryl, why not email him back and see if he wants to drop by and fill us in a bit?
Dave
25 - daryl d
I told him I would interview him if he wanted to give his side of the story. I would be happy to interview him and let him get his side of the story. By the way, here's his interview with Alan Colmes. It's an ear opening interview.