Hard-right anti-gay Conservatives 1, Moderates 0

When it comes to Canadian Conservatives reaching out to the gay community, it’s one step forward then two steps back.

Even I was surprised this week after I read that the ruling Conservatives had given almost $400,000 to Toronto’s Pride Week as a way of bolstering Toronto and its Pride celebration as tourist destinations. I was even more surprised when I learned that Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy – a member of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Calgary cabal – traveled to Toronto to deliver the check personally.

Pride Toronto, the event’s governing organization, happily accepted the check – in part as a way of showing that Pride is not partisan.

So this was a good news story all around. Right?

Well, it WAS until the right-wing extremists in the Conservative Party went berserk about the government giving money to a gay event.

But what was Ablonczy’s worst offense, according to some? Horror of horrors, she had her picture taken with drag queens!

The result? Ablonczy has been disciplined. Prime Minister Harper stripped her of her power to announce tourism investments (even though she’s the minister of tourism), and she’s been muzzled from talking to the media.

Brad Trost, a Conservative MP from Saskatchewan, was reportedly the first to have his head spin over the site of Ablonczy and drag queens. He told the far right-wing website LifeSiteNews.com, “The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by – I think it’s safe to say by a large majority – of the MPs.”

In response to inquiries from the Toronto Star, a government spokesperson said, “I know that certainly there’s going to be folks who have their concerns and they’ve raised those concerns with us. … We’re listening.”

An unnamed source in the party told the Star: “The TV shots of [Ablonczy] with transvestites inflamed some people.”

Wait a minute. All this “inflamed some people”? And the Conservatives say, “We’re listening”? Real nice for a party that has been trying to hoodwink moderates into thinking it’s not the scary right-wing party it used to be when it was called the Reform Party.

Kudos to Ablonczy for putting partisanship and wedge politics aside in order to honor what she reportedly called Pride Toronto’s “polished and professional” application. Besides, government investment in Pride celebrations is nothing new – in Toronto, both the city and the province support the event, one of the city’s biggest tourism income generators.

In the end, what this Conservative kerfuffle means is simple. Like the Republican Party in the U.S., the Conservative Party of Canada – despite moderates in its ranks – is still beholden to right-wing extremists whose exclusionary ideas and wedge-issue politics are far outside the mainstream.

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential candidate who is able – in a single rhetorical flourish – to turn South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s infidelity into an attack on same-sex couples.

On the heels of Sanford’s now-infamous Argentinean disappearing act, many talking heads are opining on whether or not the Republican Party can still call itself the “family values” party without people laughing.

While many GOPers are clinging to the “family values” myth, Romney just couldn’t help himself and took it all one step too far. On NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Romney told moderator David Gregory:

“I don't think there's any question but that we aspire to the highest standards of ethical conduct and that we aspire to values that'll make America stronger. There's no question. But the best thing you can do for raising a child is to have a mom and dad love each other in a home. And to say that and to say we want to see marriage between men and women, that we want to see families raised with the benefit of people who are married, that's a very important part of our culture.”

Wait a minute. A bunch of self-righteous Republicans reveal that they cheated on their wives, therefore GAYS shouldn’t be allowed to marry?!?!?

But it gets worse. Romney continued:

“It's part of what our party believes. We believe in life.”

What? These same self-righteous Republicans talk about their infidelity, therefore women shouldn’t have reproductive freedom?!?!?

Then he couldn’t help but return to his anti-gay conclusion:

“I'd rather be talking about the truth and indicating that sometimes people fall short than not saying what's true. And what is true is that America is a stronger nation if we have a culture that includes the creation of families with moms and dads and marriage and sacrifice for the next generation.”

All this comes from the flip-flopper who once called himself pro-choice and who, when challenging Sen. Edward Kennedy back in 1994, said he would be more pro-gay than Kennedy – one of the most liberal liberals in the U.S. Senate!

Romney is nothing but a disingenuous hypocrite who will say anything for political gain.

Need further proof? Gregory also asked Romney if he was considering running for president again in 2012. Romney’s response? “Well, that's way beyond my horizon at this point, to think about what's going to happen in 2012.”

Well Mitt, no one’s buying that!

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Washington, D.C., on-air host Doug McKelway

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Doug McKelway, a TV anchor in Washington, D.C., who makes us wonder if thou doth protest too much.

I know, you’ve never heard of this McKelway guy. I hadn’t either until I learned about his interview on NewsChannel 8’s “Let’s Talk Live” with fellow blogger Mike Rogers. The interview caught my attention at first just because Rogers is talking about the documentary he appears in, “Outrage,” about gay-but-closeted U.S. politicians. (The film is well worth seeing, by the way.)

Although McKelway is on Washington’s ABC affiliate, he was obviously influenced by the Fox News Channel school of interview techniques. He rants at Rogers from the get-go that he is opposed to Rogers’ work exposing closeted-yet-anti-gay politicians. And it escalates from there, with McKelway seemingly taking the whole issue very personally. McKelway even threatens to take Rogers outside and punch him in the face.

This is well worth watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4YhlmxUs_s

But that was only the beginning. The next day, when co-host Natasha Barrett (very weakly) tries to take McKelway to task, he very pointedly says he will not apologize. Here’s that video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulZFOz0N6Fg&feature=PlayList&p=E0E8641BDFD49DAC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=68

First off, there is an issue here that McKelway clearly does not get, which is that reporting on someone’s sexual orientation is NOT the same thing as gossiping about someone’s sexual behavior. It’s pathetic if McKelway holds to the outdated stereotype that sexual orientation is the same thing as sexual behavior.

And I’ve said it before, but I guess it needs to be said again. Sexual orientation, if relevant to a story, is not a matter of invading privacy – it’s a matter of reporting truth, which is what journalism is supposed to be about. In an age when politicians’ and celebrities’ divorces, remarriages, affairs and sex tapes are fair game, why is it unfair to ask Florida Gov. Charlie Crist if he is gay?

Secondly, regardless of your personal bias, no respectable journalist has a right to be so disrespectful to an interview subject – and you certainly shouldn’t be threatening a guest with physical violence. McKelway should be suspended or fired – not allowed to use his show to make a point that he won’t apologize.

But lastly, Mr. McKelway, why is it exactly that this issue hits such a nerve? Just asking.

MORE CHENEY FREAKINESS

Since when can’t former Vice President Dick Cheney carry his own water? Well, this week, it seems, since the Republican Party has trotted out his daughter, Liz Cheney, as a “Republican strategist” to defend her father’s apocalyptic blubbering.

Since when is Liz Cheney a “Republican strategist”? All of a sudden, she is showing up on news chat shows, perhaps because the GOP is finally realizing that Dick “Darth Vader” Cheney is a terrible messenger for whatever ridiculous argument the party is now making.

ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” even put Liz Cheney on its round table to be part of the discussion of Dick Cheney’s dire predictions about national security under the Obama administration. Yeah, because, there was really a possibility that Liz Cheney would break out of the Cheneyland spin.

And while the party is forcing one Cheney daughter upon us, where’s the other one? That would be Mary Cheney, the public-when-she-wants-to-be lesbian daughter of Dick who famously worked for her father’s team but would not challenge her father on gay issues.

Then again, Mary Cheney has proven that she has a revolving door on her closet, and while the party has no problem with Liz Cheney, Mary is hiding in the shadows once again.

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, who is neither a plumber nor named Joe, but IS sure how he feels about the “queers.”

Wurzelbacher made a name for himself during last year’s presidential campaign after John McCain and Sarah Palin began using him as a symbol of the average American. Because, you know, the average American has a publicist, a book deal, a record deal, AND a gig as a pseudo-journalist in the Middle East.

But his freakiness hit a new high – or low – this past week when he gave an interview with Christianity Today magazine.

Showing where the social conservative movement is still oddly focused, the second question the magazine put to Wurzelbacher was about marriage equality for same-sex couples. The magazine asked, “In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?”

His answer: “At a state level, it's up to them. I don't want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it's wrong. People don't understand the dictionary – it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do – what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/mayweb-only/118-13.0.html).

OK, fine. You want to think that being gay is wrong, go right ahead. But at least know what you are talking about if you are going to try to make some sort of point.

In fact, God is NOT explicit about, as you put it, “what man and woman are for.” Please point to any explicit statement by God that says that civil societies should treat gay and lesbian people like second-class citizens.

And if you think you are going to point to anything in the bible for proof of God’s word, then I’m sure you also never wear clothing of mixed fabrics, you approve of slavery, you support the death penalty for adulterers, and you “give to everyone who asks of you.” After all, those rules ARE explicitly stated in the bible.

And some of your best friends are gay. But you won’t let your children near any “queers”? Given all the people your children come into contact with over the course of a day, do you spot check all of them just to make sure your kids don’t catch the gay? (And are these people REALLY friends of yours? If so, I’m not sure why.)

Lastly, you are right, Mr. Wurzelbacher, the word “queer,” in its purest form, means strange and unusual. But what planet do you live on that you don’t know that the word “queer” is used as a slur? You love saying how liberals and Democrats are out of touch – but you have just shown how you and your ilk are the ones who are truly out of touch with reality. Walk into any high school and you tell me how “queer” is not used as a slur.

But if you insist that “queer” is merely a harmless word meaning strange and unusual, then you, Mr. Wurzelbacher, are the queerest of them all.

MORE CONSERVATIVE FREAKINESS

I can’t put it any better than the lead paragraph in a story from The Canadian Press news service: “The United States is in the midst of a devastating recession, mired in two overseas wars and grappling with a swine flu outbreak, but conservative critics are assailing President Barack Obama on another pressing issue: his choice of burger topping” (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/631019).

The latest manufactured controversy even has a name – Dijongate.

You may have seen the video footage this past week of Obama and Vice President Joe Biden going out for a burger at a Washington, D.C., fast-food joint.

One could argue that this was a pointless photo-op. But instead, conservatives are taking offense at Obama’s choice of Dijon mustard as his condiment of choice, calling putting mustard on a burger un-American.

Fox News Channel loudmouth Sean Hannity not only refers to Obama’s lunch as a “fancy burger,” but also alleges that rival network MSNBC purposefully edited out Obama’s Dijon choice in order to save the president from seeming too effete. (Yeah, all MSNBC has to worry about is Obama’s condiments!)

William Jacobson, a conservative blogger, also wrote that Obama’s Dijon ways have “a very John Kerry-ish quality about it.”

Wow, this is desperate stuff. You want to go after Obama for his economic policy? Go ahead. His bailout plan? Be my guest. His ideas on healthcare? You have that right. But his penchant for mustard? Pathetic.

And some wonder why the Republican Party is in such a pickle.

The incredible shrinking Republican Party

So U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has left the Republican Party and become a Democrat. Not only is this no great surprise, but the GOPers who are now dissing Specter are being naïve and hypocritical. But worst for them, these sour-grapes Republicans are proving that they are deaf, dumb and blind to the problems in their own party.

Whether or not you are a Specter fan, you have to give him props for being honest and up front. He said that he made the decision to cross the floor because his politics are increasingly “at odds with the Republican philosophy.” Ain’t that the truth.

Specter has always been an independent-minded moderate who confounded partisans on both the left and the right. He is more similar to “independent Democrat” Joe Lieberman of Connecticut than anyone left in the Republican ranks.

And it’s certainly no coincidence that Specter is from the Northeastern United States. More and more, the Northeast is becoming a Republican-free zone. That’s because Northeast or New England-style Republicans used to set the tone for the party, that of a moderate, populist, libertarian, big tent. But now, the GOP is a regionalized, Southern, right-wing, reactionary party that has become so extreme that moderates like Specter no longer feel welcome.

Make no mistake, however. This problem did not start with Barack Obama’s election in 2008. Another Northeasterner, former U.S. Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, gave up his Republican membership in 2001 to sit as an independent. As he said at the time, he did not leave the party, but the party left him. And yet another Northeasterner, former U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, also turned his back on the GOP for the same reasons.

Now, there is not one single Republican member of the House from New England. And the only state from the region with Republican senators is Maine, with Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe as the standard bearers of a Republican Party that does not exist anymore.

To her credit, Snowe understands the problems plaguing her party. As she wrote in the New York Times this week, “In my view, the political environment that has made it inhospitable for a moderate Republican in Pennsylvania is a microcosm of a deeper, more pervasive problem that places our party in jeopardy nationwide. … There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.html).

Today, it is clear – to be a moderate is to be a Democrat. (How long before Snow and Collins follow Specter’s lead?)

To be expected, the few Republicans left are angry. But their comments miss the mark that Snowe hit with a bull’s-eye. And Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele – the guy in charge of the party – is the most clueless of all.

“Let’s be honest,” he said in a written statement. “Sen. Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.”

OK then, let’s be honest. In fact, Specter was brutally honest about how he would likely lose next year’s Republican primary because Republican primary voters are now more extremist and right wing than ever. There is no shame in running away as fast as possible from the wing nuts who would vote in that primary.

Also, does Mr. Steele really thinks that his party and its politicians are free of acting out of self interest?

Most ridiculous, however, is how Mr. Steele goes after Specter as a Republican in name only who didn’t fit into the Republican Party because of a “left-wing voting record.”

If Specter’s record is so left wing and out of sync with the rest of the party, why the heck would Steele want Specter to stay? At least Rush Limbaugh was honest enough to say he was glad Specter left.

Ironically, it was Steele who got in trouble with his party earlier this year for saying he favors “individual choice” on the issue of abortion, opposes a federal ban on same-sex marriage rights, and thinks Limbaugh’s radio show “incendiary” and “ugly.”

Come to think of it, maybe Steele should become a Democrat, too.

Most likely, however, Steele and his misguided approach will stay in the GOP as the party grows smaller and smaller and smaller.

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Michael Steele

This week, the FredBlog shines the freaklight on Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican Party who can’t seem to stand up to Rush Limbaugh.

They say that politics loves a vacuum. And right now, the Republican Party in the U.S. has no political leader – after all, Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress. So that leadership role should fall to the chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC), the party’s administrative and strategic arm.

Steele is the new chair of the RNC, elected by committee members back in January. He is also the RNC’s first African-American leader and was seen as a moderate who could bring the Republican Party back to big-tent status, rather than the right-wing regional party it has become.

But if Steele isn’t strong enough to stand up to radio talk-show toad Rush Limbaugh, he certainly won’t be strong enough to bring the party back to power.

And his capitulation to the Toad was the biggest political news story of this past week.

First, Steele seemed on solid footing. In response to all this talk about the Toad being the leader of the Republican Party, Steele told CNN, “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly."

So good, so far.

But then the Toad burped back on his radio show, “Why do you claim to lead the Republican Party when you seem obsessed with seeing to it President Obama succeeds?”

OK Mr. Steele, ignore the Toad and remain as strong as, well, steel!

That didn’t last long.

After the Toad Show, Steele apologized, saying, “I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership. I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking. It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not."

Just try to diagram those sentences!

As if that ridiculous statement weren’t enough, Steele issued yet another apology, calling the Toad “a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice. I truly apologize.”

Mr. Steele, if you can’t stand up to some radio loudmouth, how are you going to stand up to the Democrats who, by the way, control everything right now?

At least one member of the RNC is now calling on Steele to resign, citing “eroding confidence.” Got that right!