Friday, June 26, 2009

GayPatriot: Does GayPatriotWest Ever Start a Post Without a Strawman?

I’m just wondering because so many of his articles seems to start with some abstract supposition or random question.

Like today’s post “Wonder if Young People Are Beginning to Regret their Enthusiasm for Obama.” GayPatriotWest / Dan Blatt questions if recent graduates are regretting their general enthusiasm for overwhelmingly supporting the President in the general election last year. You see, because of the hard job market due to the poor economy, GayPatriotWest just happens to be curious if young people who supported the President now blame him for the situation.

Now mind you, nothing has prompted this question from recent news or surveys of which I’m aware. I’ve not noticed any news outlets running stories about it. I’ve not even seen the concern raised in passing that somehow recent grads fault the President for the current market. But, you know, GayPatriotWest is just curious about it.

So why might it be that no news outlets are not noting any of the concerns that GayPatriotWest just '”wonders” about? Oh that’s right. It’s a partisan talking point, a strawman argument that has made GayPatriotWest “wonder” about such things. Republicans and conservatives have finally latched on to the one and only talking point that seems to have some traction – deficit spending. Not that it concerned them much when we were spending well beyond our means for an elective military conflict. Despite their reputation as being the party of fiscal conservatism, it hasn’t seemed to bothered them for decades if you review the numbers. But they realize if people don’t pay attention to why we’re engaged in deficit spending, they can gain a little political opportunity. Being so far out of power there’s no reason for them to govern responsibly, so why not make some political hay if it’s possible?

If that weren’t the case I’m thinking GayPatriotWest’s musings would be slightly different. I see he hasn’t wondered if the situation could actually be worse now than it is if the President’s plan wasn’t adopted. He hasn’t wondered if recent college grads are truly relieved, despite the job market, that things are actually better than they imagined. He hasn’t wondered what the situation would be if the President’s opponent, who acknowledged a general lack of understanding about economics, had been elected instead.

See in GayPatriot land it’s not about good government, or even balanced government. It’s simply about political opportunism – the tuxedo you dress the strawman in.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

GayPatriot: Double standard on cheating government leaders

According to GayPatriotWest / Dan Blatt we should ignore the Sanford scandal because it “detracts from issues of greater relevance.” He goes on to support another blogger’s assertion that “the media are lying in wait” for politicians on the Right. Paranoid much? Especially since all these scandals, despite party affiliation, were fully hung out by the mainstream media? Clinton, Spitzer, McGreevey, etc. were not given the same treatment as conservative/Republican leaders?

However, when the shoe was on the other foot, they regularly  denounced and mocked the immorality of liberal/Democratic leaders who have been caught up in such scandals. The site regularly offered excuses/waffling/misdirection on the Foley affair, the Craig stance, the Vitters assignations… heck they didn’t even comment on John Ensign at all.

Double standard? As the party of family values, don’t conservatives and Republicans have more a vested interest in actually living up to those values they expect the rest of the country to follow? As the party that regularly tries to institute morality for the rest of the country through actual legislation, why shouldn’t the media highlight the hypocrisy of their bad behavior?

Bias against conservatives and Republicans seems to be only in the minds of conservatives and Republicans.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

GayPatriotWest: Gay Organizations Should Speak Up Already

I’m having a little tit for tat with the commenters at GayPatriot* at the post “Gay Groups Maintain Silence on Iran Protests” where GayPatriotWest / Dan Blatt is upset that gay advocacy groups haven’t issued some sort of statement supporting the protests in Iran.

As I’ve maintained in the thread, HRC, IGLHRC and many other groups have been vocal and supported specific activism to better the lives of gay men and women in Iran and many other countries for years; not issuing imprudent and hasty statements from these groups are absolutely not an indication of the commitment these groups have to the issue.

But in the post GayPatriotWest points out three specific gay rights organizations for their supposed failing. I think it’s important to note that these are general, national advocacy groups not specifically affiliated with any political organization. They are not international organizations, nor are they political organizations, rather national organizations that advocate to politicians and political organizations. However, GayPatriotWest didn’t point out that that two national gay political organizations didn’t post specific statements of advocacy for the protests either, namely Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud. Why not call them out as well?

I think Peggy Noonan** says it best with her comments on Republicans impatiently jumping in with criticism of the President similarly:

To refuse to see all this as progress, or potential progress, is perverse to the point of wicked. To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous. The ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week. John McCain and others went quite crazy insisting President Obama declare whose side America was on, as if the world doesn't know whose side America is on. "In the cause of freedom, America cannot be neutral," said Rep. Mike Pence. Who says it's neutral?

This was Aggressive Political Solipsism at work: Always exploit events to show you love freedom more than the other guy, always make someone else's delicate drama your excuse for a thumping curtain speech.

Mr. Obama was restrained, balanced and helpful in the crucial first days, keeping the government out of it but having his State Department ask a primary conduit of information…


Update: Joe Klein makes the same critique of John McCain and friends and their warmongering to make political hay here.


* I’m surprised I’m not still banned at GayPatriot. I’ll be more surprised if I’m not banned again once they realize I’m posting there.

** I can’t believe I’m both a) quoting Peggy Noonan in support of one of my posts and b) that I actually agree with what she has to say on the issue

Monday, June 22, 2009

GayPatriotWest: Exactly Who is “Flaunting” Their Ignorance (and Bias)?

Poor Dan Blatt must not have been able to avoid an actual face-to-face conversation with a real unapologetic lefty this weekend. In his post “Flaunting Ignorance as Evidence of Intellectual Superiority” he mentions having a conversation with a “left-wing liberal” who had a strong opinion about Republicans and their anti-gay sentiments. Well Danny-boy of course took the opportunity to expound in the post on how he felt the Left was just ignorant about conservative Republicans, how of course they were not anti-gay, and how liberals who offer comments on his blog indiscriminately “demonize” the GOP without cause. Dan was sure this person was “ignorant” getting most of his news from “MSNBC and the coverage on leftist blogs.”

You’ll have to excuse me if I find this highly ironic and comical. Here we have a post on GayPatriot attacking a critic for being ignorant, selective in their information sources and intellectually dishonest in their rhetoric. Isn’t this exactly what GayPatriotWest / Dan Blatt does regularly?

As I’ve pointed out numerous times, whenever Dan feels actually inclined to support his editorial posts, he often only cites himself in his other editorialized posts. If not referencing himself, he’ll reference blogs found from searches on Pajamas Media that no one has ever heard of written by people with credentials as dubious as he. These individuals often cite other similarly dubious blogs and resources only eventually getting back to a real mainstream news posting.

If not biased, shifty bloggers, GayPatriotWest then uses other biased Right-wing outlets like National Review, The Weekly Standard, Commentary Magazine, Newsbusters, et al. For someone criticizing “left-wing liberals” for watching MSNBC and reading leftist blogs, he doesn’t really represent a mainstream alternative when cheerleading Fox News’ ratings and limiting his online references to exclusively right-wing conservative outlets. His blogroll can give you a fairly obvious picture of the bias, his references even more so.

But what really sticks in my craw is GayPatriotWest’s intellectual dishonesty. Especially with his references to other blogs, the eventual news item at the heart of the argument is often misreported or misrepresented in the first place. He himself never takes the time to look at the actual news, just the highly diluted and politicized version of it. These blogs will take mainstream items and selectively quote, editorialize, or flat-out misrepresent the content. I’ve had to wade through layer after layer of commentary, like a rotten onion, to get to any real grain of news when reviewing the references on GayPatriot.

More often than not though, he just extemporaneously makes up the reality of his commentary from his world view, nothing more.

This man was convinced that anti-gay attitudes would end if the Republican Party stopped promoting them. I hated to tell him this, while, the GOP may from time to time appeal to social conservatives by opposing policies popular among the gay left (and even the gay middle and right), our party is not the source of such attitudes.

Well last time I checked, the GOP does a little more than a “time to time appeal” to social conservatives. Whether by the Republican revolution in the early 1990s or electing George Bush (twice) with the coalition of “values voters,” the GOP is beholden to these conservatives as their base. And it’s for that reason the GOP’s party platform for 2008 specifically supported DOMA, DADT, and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage while pointedly not including language about gay men and women in their statement on “Equal Treatment for All.” These are all issues that received the opposite treatment in the Democratic platform.

If the GOP includes very specific anti-gay bias in their party platform, how can Dan say with a straight face, “our party is not the source of such attitudes?” The GOP doesn’t acknowledge gay men and women as a minority morally deserving of anti-discrimination laws, they definitely don’t want us to get married and will change the constitution to keep it that way and they sure as hell do not want to get ass-raped by us in an army shower… The GOP fundamentally embraces anti-gay sentiments and policies, but it’s not the “source” of it, so somehow that makes it OK?

That’s why GayPatriotWest is once again completely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest in this argument. If he’s truly not aware of his own party’s sentiment on these issues, he’s obviously turning a blind eye. How is possible to trust Dan’s judgment at all in the editorial format of GayPatriot when it’s obvious that he’s flaunting his own ignorance (and bias)?

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

GayPatriot: Hawkish Iran Military Stance Despite Historical Record

Playing on the sympathies of the ignorant, GayPatriotWest/Dan Blatt today made the assertion that our President was detrimentally apathetic and/or naive on the situation in Iran and that we should take action to institute regime change. For someone working on a Master’s in mythology, a supposed student of history, it’s almost jaw-dropping to see him take this position, until you factor in the know-nothing certitude of being a neoconservative.

To simply look at the history of the United States and Iran it’s easy to see how our meddling in the affairs of the country have not only changed policies to the detriment of the Iranian people but have spoiled diplomatic relations between us. In 1953 with the Eisenhower administration, we established a course of odious events still unfolding today. We put our own interests ahead of the interests of a sovereign nation, methodically instituting a regime change in the country, arsenic in the well of United States/Iran relations.

But looking at the situation of today, not only is the opposition to the government in Iran not asking for our support, most experts familiar with the situation flat-out acknowledge how detrimental taking that step would be. Consider the potential fall-out. If we were to support the resistance and they not succeed in their efforts, we have an even angrier, suspicious and vengeful government in Iran with which to deal. If we support the resistance and they were to succeed, we still have a very large and destabilizing force within a newly unstable Iran itself and negative sentiment that would proliferate through the whole of the Middle East. As I noted before, we still don’t have a clear indication that Ahmedinejad’s opponent is significantly different and more progressive to put our own national security at risk on this gamble. More importantly, and what GayPatriotWest blithely ignores, is that we are generally not a welcome presence in Iran by any faction, though young people have been more receptive than in the past.

But it still leaves me gob-smacked to see people like GayPatriotWest cheerleading this kind of pre-emptive regime change effort. You’d think that after eight years of similar policy that has left us with the mess of Afghanistan and Iraq, conservatives would at least think twice before advocating meddling in Iran’s sovereign affairs. It should be clear to anyone who stopped to consider the forces at work that a slow and steady approach to the conflict there will lead to more long-term positive results, both for US interests and the Iranian people. Reform has to be initiated by the people of a country first and foremost for it to be fundamental and lasting. GayPatriotWest though would have us be the democracy police of the world when we have no authority and the results more likely than not would cause further harm to the country we’d like to help and our own interest as well. GayPatriotWest’s advice seems wholly unpatriotic, putting a slavish neoconservative devotion to “democracy” in the abstract above our national interests. It’s simply another opportunity for politicking the neoconservative cause at the expense of America.

John Cole on the Letterman Protest

John Cole totally has it right:

The most amazing thing about it is that this could just as easily have been a McCain/Palin rally, a tea party, or an anti-abortion protest. Same wingnuts, different signs.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Where are gay Republicans on LGBT Hate Crimes?

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems gay Republicans are more interested in championing bubble-headed conservative icons like Carrie Prejean and Governor Sarah Palin from supposed bias than in highlighting the hatred and actual physical assaults gay men and women regularly encounter.

That's why this story at Towleroad is disturbing noting the rise in gay hate crime in recent years. Does it follow the increasing trend of Right-wing violence we see in anti-choice, anti-liberal, white supremacist, pro-gun violence that was reported in the DHS report earlier in the year and as chronicled recently on Rachel Maddow?

GayPatriot: Criticizing HRC Before Having Anything to Criticize

Despite the outcome in the Iranian elections not even close to being settled, despite the secondary candidate being conservative and unlikely to differ from Ahmedinejad on gay issues, despite the ongoing advocacy by the HRC and their sister organization IGLHRC on these issues, GayPatriotWest still criticizes HRC for not issuing a press release on the issue. What exactly are they supposed to issue a press release about?

“[Solomonses] didn’t even issue a statement in solidarity with the Iranian people protesting their anti-gay regime.” Last time I checked the Iranian people aren’t protesting their “anti-gay regime,” but rather protesting what they feel is an unfair and rigged election. There’s no guarantee that the opposition is likely to change policy on gay issues, Mousavi considered a conservative though not as conservative as Ahmedinejad. I find no press or statements that indicate the intention of Mousavi to better the situation of gay men and women in Iran. Why the hyperventilation by Dan Blatt? Politicizing the situation of course.

Apparently its better when you issue a press release immediately and do nothing after like GOProud, than when you actually work on an issue but don’t immediately comment on evolving circumstances. I think Dan should take some of his own advice here.

GayPatriot: Defending the Ridiculous

What is it about verbal slights to Carrie Prejean and Governor Sarah Palin that garner post after hyperventilating post by GayPatriotWest/Dan Blatt, but actual physical attacks against gay men and women for their sexuality, where many individuals are severely beaten and sometimes killed, get no notice? David Letterman makes a tasteless joke and he should be fired, but gay men and women who die at the hands of gay bashers were asking for it since they didn’t strap on a concealed weapons?

Seriously, what does it take to interest gay Republicans in wanting to protect gay men and women as much as beloved, privileged Republican/conservative icons?

Monday, June 15, 2009

Gays In Iraq

It was just days ago when GayPatriotWest was INDIGNANT that President Obama specifically did not speak about the treatment of gay men and women who were suffering in Iraq and other Muslim countries. He and GOProud took the opportunity to soundly criticize the President for something they felt was a SIGNIFICANT oversight.

As I point out though, it’s only GOPround and  GayPatriot that have ever advocated this issue on the Right where numerous organizations on the Left had done this kind of work for years before GOProud and GayPatriot decided it was good fodder for political points.

Now with a story at Queerty, we see how the previous administration barely even threw a bone to the issue. How' is it that GayPatriot et al suddenly criticizes the Obama administration when they regularly ignored the same kind of criticism during the Bush administration?

Or is it just politics as usually for the GayPatriot/GOProud crowd?

GayPatriotWest: Don’t Demonize Social Conservatives in the Gay Marriage Debate

Let’s try an experiment and see just how ridiculous GayPatriotWest/Dan Blatt sounds. Today he posted on GayPatriot:

“Make the case for gay marriage, not against social conservatives.”

Now let’s turn that around some to see how it sounds:

“Make the case for interracial marriage, not against bigots.”

“Make the case for women’s right to vote, not against advocates of the suppression of women.”

“Make the case for animal welfare, not against the owners of puppy mills.”

Essentially, “make the case for tolerance, not against people who are intolerant.”

It’s the same theme they always go back to. GayPatriot always advocates tolerance for the intolerance they support. We’re never supposed to expect knuckle draggers catch up with the rest of the world, but rather be accommodating of their backward thinking. We’re not supposed to expect people to do the right thing but rather accommodate tradition and the way things are.

This is the mentality of Republicans and conservatives. Do what we’ve always done, unquestioned, because it’s comfortable and familiar instead of what’s right because it’s new and scary.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Does GayPatriotWest Recognize His Own Double Standards

So GayPatriotWest/Dan Blatt has himself all in a tizzy about just how mean David Letterman was to Governor Sarah Palin. “How dare he!” as he clutches the string of pearls given to him by Peggy Noonan. Today’s post about the controversy is about a supposed mainstream media double standard in not being more critical of Letterman.

Just to get it out there, I’m definitely not a fan of the governor, I think she deserves most of the criticism she receives, but I also felt Letterman missed the mark – the governor strives for a naughty librarian look, not a slutty air stewardess, and he’s assuming Palin’s daughter isn’t already knocked up and just not showing yet.


Seriously though, Letterman was a little over the top but I think it’s clear to anyone who watches him even a little that there is no love lost between him and the Bush administration and other Republicans/conservatives of that ilk. “He’s joking about statutory rape!” the Republican/conservatives bemoan. Well a) it was a joke and b) we’re talking about a family with an unwed teenage daughter who got pregnant at 16 so…

But what strikes me most about GayPatriotWest’s vehement accusation of double standards is his failure at recognizing his own double standard.

When the Carrie Prejean controversy was happening, and GayPatriotWest was about the only one still writing about it (endlessly), he was VERY UPSET that poor Ms. Prejean was being attacked for her opinion on gay marriage. He failed to comment however on the main reason the leaders of the California pageant were asking Donald Trump to dismiss her, that she was violating terms of her contractual agreement. As most mainstream comments on the controversy noted, it was contractual issues and not the controversy on gay marriage at the heart at the consideration of removing her from her appointment. So finally when Mr. Trump sees the extent of the interactions (or rather non-interactions) between Prejean and the pageant directors recently, after he expressly gave her a second chance to redeem herself on those issues, he’d had enough. As documented in email posted on the Fox News website, it was evident that Prejean was determined to do whatever she decided, regardless of her obligations and the contract she had with the pageant. The pageant director himself on Larry King mentioned how they now only contact her through lawyers and vice-versa, hers of course also the counsel for NOM.

So I’m still waiting to see, which I’m sure will not happen, if GayPatriotWest will reconsider his views on the matter to recognize his own double standards on the Prejean matter, and how they relate to his accusation of a mainstream media double standard. If the mainstream media underreports a story about a comedian making a tasteless joke about a conservative Republican politician, it’s a double standard. But if GayPatriotWest only assumes persecution on Ms. Prejean’s behalf due to her views on gay marriage, it’s completely unbiased.

Mainstream media cares less about tasteless joke about conservative= MEDIA BIAS!

Gay blogger proposes bigoted beauty queen being fired for personal views on gay marriage (e.g. “the wrath of the left”) = UNBIASED!

His double standard on the bounced bimbo goes further to suppose that pageant directors were the bad guys all along. He’s refused to consider her answer, while biased, was inarticulate and with so little grace to relegate her to runner-up despite the content of the answer. He also fails to note how it was Prejean herself, unprompted, the very next morning claiming she was runner-up because of the content of her answer with absolutely no basis for her claim.

If GayPatriotWest wanted to be truthful about double standards, rather than further his political philosophies, he needs to start with himself unless now maybe the party of Reagan is all about moronic beauty queens – with or without a title.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

GayPatriot – Don’t Politicize the Holocaust Shooting Because It Would Implicate Right-Wing

GayPatriotWest/Dan Blatt pleads that we shouldn’t politicize the recent shooting at the Holocaust Museum in DC because the shooter in question wasn’t tied to any specific organization; he was an individual acting alone. It seems his words are to exonerate the Right-wing more than anything else.

What fallacies in his completely editorial post. It’s most certainly a growing movement and the shooter was representative of extremist Right-wing thought and propaganda. Dan objects that if you’re not specifically associated with a Right-wing organization you can’t be considered a Right-wing terrorist, just a one-off kind of non-partisan terrorist. It’s incorrect to think this individual was not part of racist Right-wing organizations. He has a 40 year history of participation in activities and writings with a number of racist groups.

The Tennessee church shooter, the murderer of Dr. George Tiller, the cop killer in Pittsburgh and now this recent violent act at the Holocaust Museum are following a worrying trend reported on at the Rachel Maddow show, that Right-wing violence is on the rise. She recently explored how anti-choice activists are becoming more bold in their actions and how statistically Right-wing violence increases with Democratic presidents. This combined with the frenzy of gun and ammunition buying by the paranoid Right-wing and the recent denunciation of the DHS report on Right-wing extremism can only lead to one conclusion, that the Right-wing is implicitly associated with these kinds of actions. It may be an individual or small group of people carrying out such actions, but it’s the whole of a larger group, with conservative rhetoric and writings priming the violence, that absolutely are at fault.

What we must refrain from is ignoring the words and rhetoric of the Right-wing that lead to this kind of violence. The Southern Poverty Law center notes 60 Right-wing terrorist plots from the 1990s to today, and how they did or were intended to kill individuals. They also note that while Left-wing plots have also been conceived and carried out, causing much property damage, they’ve never incurred a fatality. Left-wing domestic terrorism is in the distinct minority both regarding actual plots and the threat to the lives of others. To be sure, this is a Right-wing problem and we should address it as such, not try to whitewash it like GayPatriotWest suggests.

GayPatriot Promotes Violence Instead of Laws

So a recent post by GayPatriotWest/Dan Blatt supports a strawman argument once again. Similar to how they approach gay marriage, continually churning up new hurdles they feel necessary to support gay marriage, now they do the same with hate crimes legislation. He posts support for Chris Barrone of GOProud’s assertion that relaxing restrictions on carry concealed weapons (CCW) should be part of the new hate crimes legislation as proposed as an amendment by Senators Thune and Vitters. Here’s a few thoughts:

  • Contrary to the Republican “state’s rights” ideology, they’re supporting federal legislation to relax restrictions on CCW, superseding the law of individual states
  • There are only 2 states altogether that do not allow for CCW, Wisconsin and Illinois
  • Of the remaining states that do allow CCW, only 1/3 have some kind of specific restriction on CCW
  • Barrone’s statistical support is a report covering the years 1977-1992
  • From current statistics, there seems to be no correlation between open access to CCW and hate crimes incidences

“This amendment is not a poison pill” he disingenuously writes, but rather for the good of all gay men and women. So essentially, even though you can apply for and receive a permit to carry concealed in 48 states if you’re a law abiding citizen, GOProud still wants to further relax those restrictions by forcing a federal provision into the hates crimes pill. Because, you know, carrying a piece 24/7 is so much more practical than instituting laws to help deter violence specifically against gay men and women.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

What do you get when you only reference yourself? GayPatriot!

So I’m amused today by GayPatriotWest/Dan Blatt’s faux hyperventilation about the lack of response by mainstream gay rights groups to President Obama’s Cairo speech.

See apparently they were supposed to be outraged, OUTRAGED!, by what he didn’t say in the speech. Specifically the President was to call on Islamic countries to stop persecuting gay men and women for their sexuality in the speech. And because he didn’t, and the mainstream gay rights groups didn’t call him on it, Dan can continue to rest easy in his boy-in-a-bubble conservatism, as always knowing he’s right about the world – conservatives are the caring ones, progressives are just intellectual phonies.

And how does he support his supposition in the post? Well he’s got lots of references… to his own posts. Literally only to his own posts. Four of them. To his own rambling musings. In the post itself, he doesn’t even acknowledge outside sources of information. And then when you go to his own posts he cites to support his original post, those links are to similar conservative editorial outlets of the “I’ve never heard of them” variety.  Here’s a list of the outlets he cites:

  • The Fairfacts Media Show/No Minister Blog (a blogger named “Darren”); both blogs are based in New Zealand
  • Political Vindication (to a post from two years ago)
  • GOProud - duh
  • Dr. Melissa Coulthier (a chiropractor)

Now of the “we’ve actually heard of them” variety:

  • Instapundit, but only because it refers to a posting on…
  • Politico; the same article is referenced twice through different outlets

The Politico article, about the only thing to take seriously from the Dan’s ridiculous editorials, mentions a growing concern – that the gay community is not seeing action on a variety of issues they expected to get resolved by the new administration. I’m not sure how that specifically relates to the persecution of gays in Iraq…

But back to the heart of Dan’s post, that mainstream gay organizations are failing those they represent by not taking the President to task for not calling out Islamic countries on their treatment of gay men and women.

Like conservative organizations - GOPRoud and… and…

Well there was progressive blogger Wayne Besen recently and a host of other organizations that protested at the Iraqi consulate here in NY a few weeks back. But gosh, I don’t remember seeing any conservative groups there. Oh and I guess there was HRC’s involvement in Council for Global Equality and advocacy to the State Department and the Embassy in Baghdad.

And then of course there is IGLHRC, the international organization that advocates for gay rights around the world. They are an incredibly conservative organization, right?

But the President said nothing. It’s not like he signed a UN declaration endorsing gay rights like the Bush administration refused to sign, right? And President Bush and other Republicans were much better leaders on this even though they never mentioned anything about the treatment of gay men and women in Iraq either during Bush’s entire presidency. And it’s not like an elected, openly gay Democratic representative went to Iraq on a fact finding mission that investigated these issues, right?

I mean surely conservatives are leading the way on this issue. It’s not like the mainstream media, advocacy groups or other gay blogs ever report on it, right? I would totally find advocacy and specific efforts from conservative and Republican groups on this issue beyond a press release from GOProud, right?

Sadly no. I would only find that kind of advocacy in the self-referencing imagination of a gay conservative blogger who insulates himself from the rest of the world to protect his ideals from criticism.