Always to the Same Place

Easy Target Blogging continues: we return to Townhall, where the circus of stupid never quite stops. Today we look at Michael Reagan. When we're done with that, we rush forward and gang tackle Michael Reagan, tickling him mercilessly and shouting 'coochie-coo!" as he shrieks like a 9-year-old girl.

Listening to Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig proclaim in near-thundering terms that he is not gay and never has been gay, I couldn't help but recall hearing Bill Clinton swear he "did not have sex with that woman."

This would be more interesting were I not convinced that Michael Reagan can't help but recall the "I did not have sex with that  woman" line whenever he butters his toast, wipes his ass, or loses his car keys. But I will give Michael Reagan credit for offering an interesting inadvertent rebuttal to one of the more fashionable theories floating about the left blogosphere lately, that conservatives tend to downplay straight sex scandals but go nuts about gay sex scandals. This is true, in terms of comparing Craig to prostitute-visiting diaper fetishist David Vitter. But it must never be forgotten that to the Wingnut Mind, no matter how many Pampers you have graced with your sperm, no matter how many times you've scattered your seed with a gentleman friend over the Porcelain Maelstrom, those transgressions are as nothing when compared to the horror that has been wrought by Bill Clinton's Very Heterosexual Penis.

So, important reminder. Onwards.

Because Larry Craig is a staunch conservative from a staunchly conservative state, Democrats and their leftist allies are dancing in the streets over his embarrassment, busily reminding every sympathetic reporter who will listen to them that the Idaho Senator not only espouses family values, but has been a staunch foe of gay marriage.

Ergo, he's not only a closet men's room lothario, but a hypocrite as well. It's a case of "don't do as I do, do as I say."

Well, yeah. I'm not dancing in the streets, exactly, but it is pretty funny.

As tempting a target as Craig may be, however, it's interesting how gingerly the overwhelmingly pro-gay media have approached the subject of his alleged homosexuality.

There's an overwhelmingly pro-gay media? 

Except for the more-militant gay activists, at least one of which has charged in unprintable language that Craig isn't really gay, he just likes to have gay sex, most of the media have avoided any hint that in reporting on the scandal they find Craig's suspected homosexuality objectionable.

Hmm. I think it's pretty clear that the obscene militant gay activist he has in mind is his Townhall colleague Kevin McCollough, who told us that "The fact that he has maintained a marriage for as long as he has demonstrates that he has chosen heterosexual behavior for most of his life." Potty-mouth.

Anyway, homosexuality is unobjectionable, unless you're a bigot, and I for one have never been one to buy the argument that tolerance needs to extend to bigots.

Michael Reagan's column goes on from there, but it's not very smart, I warn you.

In the media's eyes, however, there is a lot wrong with a closet gay criticizing gay marriage or promoting family values which they see as code for condemning homosexuality and gays.

Democrats and the media define Craig as a hypocrite. By their twisted logic, therefore, anybody who espouses traditional Judeo/Christian values must also be a hypocrite.

Michael Reagan has performed a double-reverse triple-axel somersault ice flip thingy! Hooray! What he seems to be saying is that he is terribly disappointed that hypocrisy is indeed hypocritical.

To clarify:

(1) People who go around passing anti-gay legislation while being gay themselves are hypocrites.

(2) People who support such legislation by invoking ludicrously incoherent "Judeo-Christian values" are bigots.

It's not that hard. Glad I could set that straight for you. (That is a very funny joke.)

And of course, the electrifying conclusion:

Democrats want the public to believe that Craig is a hypocrite who speaks one way and acts in another – appearing to be a practicing heterosexual when he is in reality a closet gay – not, they'll hasten to say, that there's anything wrong with that.

Logically and rhetorically speaking, I think he just swallowed his own ass.

What he means is, he wants it to be OK for him to deny equal civil rights to homosexuals, and is pissed off that the Craig case, whatever else it is, exposes uncomfortable confusions in the "pro-family anti-gay" position. Which is to say, he's a grumpy bigot. Poor lamb.

Comments

[dms]

I always love how the conservos add the "not that there's anything wrong with that" meme, as if it's a liberal's constant verbalization. It's the conservos who say that, to make fun of PCism.

[nick]

Does logically, rhetorically, and blatantly swallowing his own ass make Reagan a gay narcissistic cannibal?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[SteveB]

By their twisted logic, therefore, anybody who espouses traditional Judeo/Christian values must also be a hypocrite.

No, wait, that's not right. How about:

By their twisted logic, therefore, anybody who espouses traditional Judeo/Christian values while sucking cock in public toilets must also be a hypocrite.

Fixed.

[flory]

Democrats and the media define Craig as a hypocrite. By their twisted logic, therefore, anybody who espouses traditional Judeo/Christian values must also be a hypocrite.

Okay, I know he's a Reagan and therefore this question has probably answered itself -- but is he really that stupid?

[MarkL]

I read that column, and I confess that I saw logic at all. It was one of the worst columns I've ever read in a newspaper. If Reagan had a point, I doubt he could tell you what it was.

oops, I saw *no* logic at all

[myiq2xu]

It reminds me of Macaca Allen.

Here was this "good ol' boy" Senator from Virginia who ran around with rednecks and white supremicists, only it turns out he was born and raised in Southern California and he's part Jewish.

Those KKK types hate Jews almost as much as they hate blacks, and I suspect that the news cost Allen a few votes.

So is it hypocritical for a librul like me to point out that he's a square peg in a round hole?

Libruls were not calling for the resignation of Craig or Vitter, but were only pointing out the hypocrisy.

It's like when they tried to blame Mark Foley on the Democrats. It only makes sense if you drink the kool-aid.

[low-tech cyclist]

To take myiq2xu's post a step or two further, here's a quick synopsis of what we librul DFH types think about situations like this:

1) It's fine for people to be gay, and we want gays to have the same options in marriage and life as the rest of us do.
2) It's horrible that GOP/'Xian' right anti-gay bigotry causes people like Craig to have to hide who they are from themselves and the world.
3) We'd be delighted if Craig would say, "I'm here, I'm queer, I'm staying in the Senate."
4) We're still opposed to legislators of all stripes passing anti-gay legislation. But it's only hypocritical and self-hating when gays do it.
5) It's also hypocritical to say you support "Judaeo-Christian family values" and then give a big round of applause when a guy who visits prostitutes returns to the Senate.
6) If you're against it when the other tribe's people do it, but it's OK when your tribe's people do it, that's hypocrisy. End of story.