Apparently America Blog Has Lost Its Mind Too
Red State points out that the claims against the McCain campaign ad Celebrity have moved from charges of racism to charges of gay-baiting. These charges are leveled by John Aravosis at AmericaBlog,
As he’s surrounded himself with senior gay male advisors since at least the 1990s, McCain is usually careful about overt gay-bashing (though he did promise the religious right a few weeks ago that he’d be more publicly anti-gay, and just last week said he didn’t think gay people should be able to adopt children (he then backtracked, kind of)). Instead, McCain and his people are attempting to define Obama as “gay” by describing him as the stereotypical gay man. Yesterday, a McCain spokesman described Obama as fussy and prone to hysterics. A few days earlier, we were told that Obama was “flitting” around Europe. And before that, a GOP operative called Obama “a fancy lad.” Also, who is Obama compared to in the latest McCain ad? (An ad that independent fact-checkers say is totally false.) Two women, and kind of ditzy women at that - Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Let’s review. A fussy, fancy lad who flits around Europe, is prone to hysteria, and reminds you of ditzy blonde chicks. Sorry, but that’s a stereotypical gay guy. And as I said, McCain knows his gay guys. He’s surrounded by them.
The psudo-phsychological ad analyzers are clearly working over time on this political ad. First piece of evidence, (and I have to try not to laugh as I type this one) Senator McCain surrounds himself with senior male gay advisors. Well good for him, he’s not homophobic and he hires people based on skill and experience not sexual orientation. But wait; from America Blog’s perspective these are the people that must be teaching Senator McCain how to gay-bait. Second, are the veiled gay references that of Senator Obama is ‘flitting’ around Europe or that Senator Obama is a ‘fancy lad’. Now it isn’t specificied who said ‘flitting’ and who said ‘fancy lad’, but flitting around Europe isn’t that far a reach if you watched Senator Obama European tour. ‘Fancy lad’ however, doesn’t indicate homosexuality, it indicates that the statement came from someone well over sixty years old. For those readers under 50, when was the last time you heard someone other than a grandparent use the term ‘fancy lad’?
Finally, we’re back to the Celebrity ad. Yesterday the Huffington Post said that it was racist because it alluded to a relationship between Senator Obama and Paris Hilton. Today the America Blog says that this pairing alludes to Senator Obama being gay. Obama being assosciated with ‘ditzy blond chicks’ is code for gay. So all those guys that hang out with ‘ditzy blond chicks’ - Gay. That may come as a surprise to some guys who thought their intentions towards ‘ditzy blond chicks’ proved that they weren’t gay, but not according to America Blog.
Now with conflicting theories about how the Celebrity ad is a smear, this may just show that the simplest explation is the accurate explanation. It shows Senator Obama revelling in his own celebrity. He’s become a pop-star, yet lacks the experience and judgement normally required of most serious presidential candidates. It concerns the left greatly because people are recognizing it as true. This leaves lefty blogs digging for a reason to call it unfair, and apparently scraping the bottom of the barrell in the process.
Note: This article would not have been published if the author thought in any way that Senator Obama was either gay, or had a relationship with Hilton or Spears.
Filed under: McCain, Obama, Politics | Tagged: McCain, Obama, gay baiting, race baiting, celebrity, obama celeb, mccain celeb, mccain ad, huffington post, america blog
Oh, this is ridiculous. They are making huge leaps here. I’m a lesbian woman, and most of my friends are other gay people, many of whom are men. So, I do think I have some knowledge of the gay thing since I am one of them. Sorry to say, I don’t see how “flitting” around Europe and being a “fancy lad” are evoking a gay stereotype. And, I don’t know a single gay man who reminds me of a ditzy blond chick. And because McCain has some gay advisors, that means they’re “teaching” him about gay behaviors? That’s ridiculous. What is this? Have these people been talking to Anita Bryant?
I agree SC. It’s just comical that being ’surrounded’ by gay advisors is somehow proof of gay-baiting. If anything I would think it shows a level of tolerance that is not always present in Republican candidates.
I don’t even know if it’s true that he has a number of gay advisors, but it certainly doesn’t seem like the best proof of intolerance, bigotry, or smears.
Some say Obama is a political neophyte who hasn’t been around around a long enough in politics. But that just isn’t so. He has been around for a long, long year.
I recognized him immediately when I first saw him as I wasn’t taken in by his cosmetic difference in appearance. When he used the word “change” it was a dead give-away. He has used that slogan before.
So, if you are ever in a position to meet Obama personally I would advise you to have some courtesy, have some sympathy, and some taste. And remember to use all your well-learned politesse if you are ever in His presence.
On McCain’s fierce cabal of advisors, let’s be honest about some things here: first, lots of gay men become Republicans as they get older. Most have a liberal phase that eventually turns cynical when they realize the limits of their influence because of the systematic way they are fetishized and marginalized within this worldview. It’s a sentiment I have come to understand, even about myself, especially over the last year watching this fascinating and appalling election. I’ve been coming to terms with the fact that I am even considering voting Republican now. No, not a limp log cabin boy: what a group of dim bottoms. More like angry gay man Revenge Republican.
My point is that Aravosis’s lispy homosemiotics simply ignore the reality that gay men have been, and perhaps always will be, powerful within the invisible circles that make the Republican Party what it is. Angry, brilliant, scheming, self-destructive gay men have been guiding the Party since at least WW2. They do what they need to do to win. To call this ‘gay-baiting’ reveals the simplicity of a banal gay mind (I shudder.) Linking Obama to Brit and Paris places them all in the vacuous celeb universe, also coincidentally controlled by vengeful gay men. I’m not saying there’s overt gay mafia-style collusion here (unless Bravo gets involved in this), but the effect is to underscore how the sad and rotting artifice that lies at the core of celebrity culture-is also, generally, the destructive force that is driving the the O-Team. Someone needs to say it. The whole thing is kinda gay, though. But that doesn’t mean special ‘gay tactics’ are being employed. No more special than usual anyway. There’s just nothing especially homo-specific about attacking the empty, simulacral Obama campaign this way. It’s really just the proper way to attack the serious danger posed by the secular liberal cult of personality candidate and all that it could do (or not do) if it seized the bulging executive powers left by Bush. For various reasons, Hillary couldn’t hit the O-Team like this. At the time (South Carolina perhaps), I remember thinking, “No way the Republicans let Axelrod get away with this in the general.” Thankfully, this instinct has proven correct, and smart men are once again doing what they need to do to win another tawdry election for the GOP. Smart, ruthless-and indeed, fabulous-gay men.
Also, totally agree with SC. It’s extremely revealing that, to Aravosis, the prevailing cultural stereotype of a gay man is that of the vacuous, trashy, balls-out hot mess. This understanding of sexuality, gender roles, and middle America’s values really is tediously misguided.
Does anyone know anything else about McCain’s coterie? Who are these guys? I hope this is actually true.