working the GUCKERT angle does not equal HOMOPHOBIA

"Political movements arise from the spadework of intellectuals, not politicians."
-- David Brock, Blinded By The Right

One of the things I love David Brock's Blinded By The Right is that it illustrates step-by-step how the Neo-Cons and the right wing usurped old-school radical rabble-rousing techniques to win the war against, well, old-school rabble-rousing liberals. They conducted an insurrection with Gingrich bringing up the rear in 94, and have not much changed their strategy since then.

Basically their strategy is this: we are at WAR with the Democrats and anything less than all-out warfare on ALL FRONTS will not be tolerated. They went after us in the media by launching personal attacks; they have defunded our institutions; and now they are emptying our communities of our young adults so that they may steal oil from the rest of the world. They have won on all fronts.

And yet here we are, day after day, digging and pecking -- fighting for every last morsel of political capital we can throw into the pot latch. We have may irons in the fire. The election fraud front is going strong and has the distinction of introducing us to a class of statesman who will fight with us. I'm talking about Conyers et al here. We have the elevation of Barbara Boxer as a freedom fighter with her elegant refusal to let Condi Rice get away with soiling the Senate chambers with lies and innuendo. We have a diverse and vibrant anti-war movement and finally we have a real Democrat in the DNC.

Slowly but surely we are making progress.

Then, along comes Guckert.

Amid our confusion that this story received no ink upon first glance, and the FIGHT to get it in the evening news, now we must toil with our identity as progressives vis a vis Guckert's homosexuality, because like it or not there are progressives gays who feel prickly about using Guckert as an issue, AND you have to expect that the Rovian response to this battle is going to be an all-out war on our gay-cred. "Well, well, well -- what do we have here? Homophobia on the LEFT?"

Friends and neighbors, don't let this deter you. It is an illusion. A straw man. We are not homophobic. We have the RESPONSIBILITY to our party and our causes (war, poverty, judicial appointments) to follow this story and unveil the machinations behind the Velvet Curtain. There is political capital sitting on the table and the only ethical thing to do is to pick it up and walk away with it.

I wrote the piece on Guckert's ball-shaving, chest waxing and wrestling called: Guckert/Gannon and understanding REPUBLICAN GAY-ness. You can find it here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x107970

See also a more serious deconstruction here:
Question of GAY SEX surrounding White House reveal who we have become.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x330564

It's humor. Irony. I had to affect a voice of shock that I can only imagine from knowing weird "normal" people in my family. I don't care if you shave your balls or your head or your dog. I don't care if you wrassle or square dance or participate in animal sacrifice to get your freak on. BUT, I'm guessing most "normal" people do. Most "normal" people who supposedly voted for Bush. Most "normal" people who look at your piercings and tattoos as a sign of the devil. Or worse, sexual! Most normal people who are being lead by the nose to destroying Social Security and the Bill of Rights.

We are a tribe and we are fighting the same devils. As such we should be keenly aware of our potential for accruing political capital. This is called TACTICAL STRATEGY. In Rules For Radicals, Saul Alinsky outlined 13 Rules of Power Tactics for outsider political action:

RULE NUMBER ONE
Power is not only what you have, but what your enemy thinks you have.
Guckert is not a pawn to us. He is at least a Bishop or Rook. He know's everything about the Velvet Mafia and they are running from him as if some big cockroach somewhere just yelled, "RAID." They no longer control him and they have no idea what he'll do next.

RULE NUMBER TWO
Never go outside the experience of your people.
I think we are much more comfortable talking these issues than your basic Southern Baptist. Ball-shaving, chest waxing -- whatever. I can talk about and not lose my balance.

RULE NUMBER THREE
Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
See above.

RULE NUMBER FOUR
Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
Well, well, well. Seems like this rule was tailor-made for the Guckert scandal. This one little controversy PROVES they can't live up to their standard of reporting, or of personal conduct. Extra points.

RULE NUMBER FIVE
Ridicule is your most potent weapon.
Indeedy-do. When the Clinton scandal broke, remember the meme of the day was that political discourse was to become the domain of late night television -- that only the Jay Lenos and David Lettermans of the world possessed the ability to speak openly of blowjobs and spoo-stains. And ridicule they did; night after night for like three years. They had independent panels and spent millions of dollars on this ridicule. Guckert provides the means to keep this pot boiling -- take it off the heat at your own peril.

RULE NUMBER SIX
A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
See above, again. What's more fun than ridiculing Republicans and having it STICK. Here's an illustration:
img src="

See how good that feels to see this dumb-ass holding a sign that ironically impugns his own message. Ah, that's good!

(i'm going to save you some of the padding and skip ahead thru the rules now)

RULE NUMBER EIGHT
Keep the pressure on.

RULE NUMBER NINE
The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
Examine this in action on US -- the threat of being labeled homophobes is, I"M SURE keeping people out of this discussion. Everyone knows that the Dems and left wing have supported the gay community thru thick and thin. We have paid heavily for it in some cases. It'd be nice if some gay-folk would get behind this and reveal as much as they know about the Velvet Mafia -- like this guy:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/19/204254/937
Padraig Pearse's piece on DailyKOS entitled Gay Facts and fantasies in Propagannon Research
The Republicans are shaking in their cowboy boots on this one, folks -- make no mistake. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

RULE NUMBER THIRTEEN
Pick a target; freeze it; personalize it; polarize it.
The Velvet Mafia goes all the way up to Rove. The connections are there plain as day.

We will not let go of the Guckert/Gannon story until this whole mess is unraveled. If you are uncomfortable with that, there's lots of other places we can use your help. Just know that are purpose is not to trade in stereotypes and Ann Coulter-esque hate mongering. We have fought the gay battles right along side of ya'll for YEARS. Don't reject the most potent weapon in our arsenal. We are not criticizing "being gay." We are using TACTICS AGAINST OUR COMMON ENEMY.

has been rove's mantra

This should be our playbook for the rest of the four years. Great advice.

:kick:

let me be the first to say, I have never thought for even a moment that the gay angle of this whole steaming mess was anything other than another fine example of Repuke hypocricy. What is striking to me is how they rode the coat-tails of homophobia to narrowly squeak their way back into the WhiteHouse, all the while rubbing the head of this little propaganda pimp. THAT is the only gay angle there is, and we cannot not allow anyone to reframe it to suit the purposes of the Regime.

my intuition, tho is that i've got the ear of some younger people who are giving me the old knee-jerk.

it's not anyone's intention to point at the Guck and say he is stereotypical of the gay community. maybe of the DC hooker community -- but not he gay community.

email inbox. These younger people are tomorrow's (and hopefully today's) voters.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do you really believe that? Do you agree with the DUer that posted about Bush/Gannon: "First comes love, then comes AIDS"?

I can't believe any DUer would believe in such an "angle".

about a sexual predator? A gay prostitute who bashes gays (and perhaps blackmails them) is the worst kind of predator. He neither wants nor deserves your defense of him.

Guckert? I was defending gays against the gay-bashing that I cited in the quote. That quote surely must be considered "morally reprehensible". Right?

Please read my post carefully next time before making a clearly unsubstantiated, groundless charge.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The answer is yes, I am.

Not for a minute do I think that this is rooted in homophobia, but were it, I'd take this one for the team.

And for all the wingers pointing out supposed dem hypocrisy (though we are fighting for the right to marry, not prostitute ourselves), don't do me any favors, please.

We are comfortable with homosexuality. Unlike the childish Right, we know that gays and lesbians are just people like us. We don't have that imaginary enemy they have created for themselves.

This story really makes them squirm. Yes!!!! Their hypocrisy is full front and center.

Stay on them like rabid wolves.


Very nice summation, nashville_brook :)

that's my rabid wolf imitation :)

:)

Hitler's first supporters were from the Berlin gay community. They were rewarded for their support by being one of the first to be locked up in concentration camps.

Gannon, Rove, McLellan, and the others are "collaborators" and should be treated as such.

The young gays that are upset need to brush up on their history. Us older fags are aware of the HYPOCRISY. We're the ones that need to keep reminding the young ones what happens when you support an oppressive regime.

at work with this shit. is it as simple as it seems? is it simply that when evil twisted bastards get the opportunity, they show the world their power by crushing their friends and lovers. i just don't get it -- but it seems to be just that simple.

I'm sure there were gays who supported him, just as there are gays in every part of the population, but it sounds like you are saying specifically that gays were his first supporters, otherwise, you might have said "Among Hitler's first supporters" rather than "Hitler's first supporters". That seems odd to me and a little far-fetched.

You will get a simple answer to what Hiltler did and who supported him.

Actually, it's better to google "Hitler and homosexuals" to get a better idea of what he did and who supported him.

Here are a few links that come from searching for "WWII timeline"... point me in the right direction...

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/index.htm

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/start.html

On edit... after your edit to search for homosexuals and Hitler, I get nothing but this... is this what you mean? If so, it hardly sounds like a homosexual movement to support Hitler... sounds like a few men... and it sounds like rumor.

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/174917.html

You can find what I write about here:



http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Educational_Resources/Curriculum/Homosexuals__Genocide_in_the_H/homosexuals__genocide_in_the_h.html


Go down to the paragraph that discusses gay "brown shirts." This should explain it to you.

"The Nazis' murder of some homosexuals started earlier than that of the Jews with the murders of Ernest Roehm and other brown shirts in his paramilitary group known as the SA, although the major reason for these murders was to eliminate a potentially rival force to the SS. Roehm was a major Nazi leader, second only to Hitler as they rose to power in the 20's and early 30's. He and his cadre of "brownshirts" were homosexuals, which was not a problem at the beginning for Hitler, but later did prove an embarrassment and a threat. Roehm and other SA leaders were murdered without warning in a famous blood purge which was led by Himmler and other SS officers at the instigation of Hitler and began on June 30, 1934, which has been called 'The Night of Long Knives.'"

I don't mean to be contrary, but this seems kind of a feeble source to get that Hitler's primary support in the beginning was from homosexuals... Sounds more like a group of gay men (similar to the Log Cabin Republicans I suppose) and most importantly, one man, Roehm, supported Hitler, but were not his only supporters.

But thanks for the info in any case, it's interesting and goes a long way to explaining Hitler's persecution of gay men.

Believe me, there are gays who lie, steal, cheat and do all those nasty things people do when they have no personal ethic.

My only slight objection to the pursuit of this story is the seemingly irresistible temptation to jump past Guckert and the national security/press pass issue, and the insider info issue and the male-prostitute/cum pseudo-journalist issue right to the BUSH IS GAY non-issue.

The Guck was someone's pet.

follow the The Guck and you might turn up good, hard evidence of conspiracy while impugning Rove et al.

'cause, we all know who is ultimatley in charge of ALL political reporting. if Rove didn't rubber stamp this, it COULD NOT have happened.

Rove is the trophy.

And have said so on this board. Rove is the key to the Guckert mystery.

back to him.

It doesn't matter if it was gay sex or straight sex. Pillow talk is pillow talk.
When someone without the proper clearance is told that there will be a major military offensive in four hours, that's treason. He told his editor and who else? Is that why Saddam was not there when the first bombs fell?

"reason for the treason" is great!

*Roslyn Carter mentioned that there are no homosexuals in Georgia.

*It was the police raids in NYC of gay bars (from a Democratic controlled city hall) that led to the Stonewall Riots, and thus the modern gay civil rights movement.

*The Democratic controlled congress in the 1980s did very little to stem the tise, or fund education on the prevention of the AIDS epidemic (which is still around BTW).

*The first Presidential candidate to even mention us was Bill Clinton in 1992. Many who wonder why he was called a "waffler"...read on.

*Clinton tried to end the ban on gays serving in the military, but it was Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat, who led the charge in opposition to him. The result was DADT. A "compromise" that ended up pleasing no-one. The witch hunts continue to this day.

*Clinton Signed and passed DOMA. Need I say more?

*When Lieberman was railing against Hollywood, he was talking about Queer as Folk just as much as he was talking about Basketball Diaries.

*Bill Clinton tried to convince John Kerry to concede the "gay marriage amendment" for political expediency.

Make no mistake, gays have been the sacrificial lambs of political expediency the Dems fall back on time and again.


All that being said, I have made a home here, because of the general rank and file, and their acceptance of human nature. I also know that at times I don't get any bread, but I at least know who butters it when I do. A friend in 2000 once told me..."It's better to have Al Gore spit in our faces than George Bush to hold a gun to our heads." I agree with that sentiment. Do what you need to expose the hypocrites, but I will be watching, as you are treading a fine line between outing and exposure of hypocricy and being guilty of hypocricy yourselves. If you need any help, most of us gay people know the difference between political warfare and plain old mean spiritedness. Don't tell us what we need to get behind, ask us for our advice instead. If that had been your message, instead of paternalistic orders, then I probably would've ignored the historical inaccuracy of your post and joined you.

I know what you're trying to say here, and you have my support (within reason), but I just need to put this fantasy that the Dems have been these great "champions" of gay people, because it just isn't true. Now is the time to prove the Party's history wrong, and move forward.