Weird. So Breitbart is gay? Would appear so given that he’s on the board of a GOP gay group. But he’s saying that it’s awful to push people out of the closet and we can’t do that - because hey, look at what jackasses like Perry do to gays! They persecute them! Even knowing their own staffers are gay!

Huh? He wants to preserve the ability of Perry to persecute gays and preserve the ‘closet’ for gays - in the name of protecting the gays!

Wha?

So Breitbart is gay? Would appear so given that he’s on the board of a GOP gay group.

No, he’s not. They can only find straight folks to sit on the board, folks like Ann Coulter and Andrew Breitbart.

It’s an advisory board so it’s really open to anybody.  People like him wield a disturbing amount of cache in the conservative community because he has the ear of the willfully bigoted, something the GOProud group wants since they’re in a self-loathing spiral over wanting to be wealthy gay conservatives.  Honestly though, this whole stink is an attempt to distance himself from a group that could face retaliation from other conservative groups and his public statement is such a bold-faced lie combined with his hypocritical ideology of lying against liberals is OK but if you admit the truth about the conservatives it’s a crime. 

I’m honestly wondering though, is Breibart’s 15 minutes almost up?  It seems he’s starting to lose steam with his BS stories and this isn’t going to win him friends with his bigoted followers.

If that ad wasn’t such a parody of itself to begin with ... sheesh.  Even the “Ass” one was drop dead funny because Perry’s gesturing and swaggering is so stiff and fake!  And that Carhart jacket never saw no real life use, either.

First of all, is it just standard now for conservatives to make preposterous claims about how they used to be liberals? The way they carry on, you’d think there wasn’t a conservative in this country prior to 1980.

It’s part of pandering to wingnuts.  They suspect that they’re dumber than liberals in general, if only because liberals insist on bringing facts to a rant-fight.  So if a leader tells them “I am smart. I used to be a liberal but I wised up and became a wingnut”, then the people he’s ripping off - I mean, talking to - can tell themselves “Duh, it must be Liberals that are Teh Dumb!!”.

This twisted ‘logic’ or whatever reminds me of W Bush - he doesn’t make any logical sense because, guess why kids: The substance of what he advocates is totally illogical. He sounds garbled and disjointed and illogical for the right reason: He is garbled and disjointed and illogical.

Hmm. I had thought Coulter was gay as well. Gaydar I guess is not working.

Perhaps Breitbart is just upset because he didn’t get to participate and take credit for the outing of Fabrizio.

First of all, is it just standard now for conservatives to make preposterous claims about how they used to be liberals? The way they carry on, you’d think there wasn’t a conservative in this country prior to 1980.

Given that people like Breitbart make up the conservative movement today, they probably don’t believe there were any conservatives before then. Plus, when you’ve based your position on pure BS it helps divert attention from that to claim you used to think differently but now know better. It gives an air that you’ve actually thought about it instead of coming by it way of having huffed gas fumes.

That lying sack of dirt.
I hope he gets treated like he treats everyone else.
(I kind of think of him as that weird kid from Mad Men who collected Betty’s hair.)

PiatoR-  I’m going to remember your definition of liberal as someone who “insists on bringing facts to a rant-fight”.  Good one!

@KingElvis #7: (a) trans isn’t the same thing as gay, and (b) let’s not dump Ms. Coulter on the trans community; they’ve got enough to deal with already.

To the original point of the article: if you are selling out people *just like you* for fun and profit, you are a jerk.  I don’t care what your rationalization is; you deserve whatever you get.

I’m not advocating group politics or balkanization.  It’s simpler than that:  if you are willing to sell out someone who is just like you, you are willing to sell out *anyone*.  And that makes you an amoral twit.

All the hand-wringing by fellow twits like Breitbart won’t change that.

First of all, is it just standard now for conservatives to make preposterous claims about how they used to be liberals? The way they carry on, you’d think there wasn’t a conservative in this country prior to 1980.

This is also a common tactic in fundamentalist Christian “witnessing”.  I’ve heard a lot of stories about people who were horrible pagan atheists, dabbling in the occult, before they “came to Christ” - when really, those people were brought up in mainline denominations and went to church fairly regularly.

Conversion stories are powerful.  The more extreme the conversion, the more powerful.  From a purely rhetorical standpoint, claiming to be a convert from “the other side” also allows you to make baseless claims about how your opponents think and feel and act.  It gives some weight (at least among believers) when you ascribe negative motives to them.

If you were a dishonest conservative pundit, then, why wouldn’t you claim some incredible conversion story?  Really, it can only help you.

“Why does Breibart feel so keenly for the family and wallet of Mr. Fabrizio after displaying nothing but contempt for the families and wallets of the working-class ACORN staffers he and his pal James O’Keefe so willfully misrepresented back in 2009? “

Breitbart comes across as a person who feels nothing but contempt for everyone.  After all, if they were people with any claim to importance, they’d be Andrew Breitbart!  (It isn’t strictly necessary to be a sociopath in order to succeed as a Reichwing hack, but it sure helps.)

We can only hope that somewhere, at this very moment, there is a soon-to-be-openly-disgruntled employee/partner/contributor who is planning the karmic retribution Breitbart so richly deserves.  And it won’t be necessary to lie about him — simply exposing the actual, hard, ugly, disgusting, unvarnished truth about what a colossal ass and despicable person he is will speak volumes…

Did you guys know GOProud was formed because they felt Log Cabin Republicans was too liberal?

“If you were a dishonest conservative pundit, then, why wouldn’t you claim some incredible conversion story?  Really, it can only help you.”

...note, however that this really only works one way.  If you claim, however falsely, to have been a Former Heathen Librul Hippie Who Finally Saw the Light When Ronald Reagan Spoke, then you’ll be openly and loudly embraced by wingnuttia, truth be damned, as long as you freely spout-off Reichwing talking points. 

If you claim to be a Former Conservative Who Became a Damn Dirty Hippie Liberal, chances are no one outside the liberal community will know anything about it…

“After all, Breitbart gleefuly rained “vocational and family harm” on Anthony Weiner by outing him as a guy who crudely flirts with young women online. “

That’s a pretty mild way of describing what Weiner did, Amanda. If the recipient is to be believed, he was sending unsolicited photos of his boner to a woman he barely knew on Twitter. That isn’t exactly what I’d call “private sexual conduct” or even “crudely flirting.”

So.  Who is going to “out” Bratblight ... and for what?  Dirt is everywhere, and he’s exactly the sort of douchebag who would think he’s too special for the rules of plebes to apply to him.

However you like to phrase it, it falls under Breitbart’s newly claimed umbrella of not wishing to out people in a destructive fashion. Seems his “principles” are….how do you say….not real?

What’s in YOUR closet?

And what will that do to your wallet?

But Amanda: his newfound prudery is about “divulging the details of an individual’s sexual orientation”—all the other lies or half-truths are completely OK. (And since Weiner had outed himself as straight by getting married…)

I think it’s much simpler than that. In Breidtbart’s world, it’s terrible to assail a person’s life and livelihood, but as long as you’re just going after a liberal, it’s fine.

First of all, is it just standard now for conservatives to make preposterous claims about how they used to be liberals?

I think, at most, a lot of them are claiming that ‘had liberal parents and/or grew up in a liberal state’ qualifies as ‘used to be liberals.’ I heard Breitbart’s accounting of his ‘conversion’ once in an interview on C-SPAN radio that amounted to nothing more than this.

I can’t believe there are also gay Republicans.  These one-issue or a few-issue Republican groups make no sense, all issues if you really think about it are connected.  There has to be a lot of cognitive dissonance for a gay person to be for gay rights and then be against the environment or unions or raising the minimum wage.  Liberalism represents all the good parts of humanity, including expanding gay rights.  Either that or they really don’t care about gay rights and they are just a front group.  This is why I don’t take pseudo-libertarians when they say they are for legalizing pot or cutting military spending.  They can’t then turn around and call for less business regulations, less taxes for the rich, etc without feeling hypocritical for supporting some liberal issues, unless they don’t REALLY support them.

Would someone please explain to me the mentality of someone who finds Breitbart to be a real, respectable journalist to me kthxbai?

Albert—my theory on this is that gay republicans feel that their rights are better guaranteed by the money they have, and so they do everything to maximize their money (by throwing in with the party of “lower taxes” even though that in and of itself is a canard). Let’s face it, the Dems have been very foot-draggy on gay rights for a long time, so throwing your vote to a Dem on the outside chance they’ll get around to supporting your equal rights while they raise your taxes and take more of the money you would have bought to the power and influence to protect you and your partner is a losing gamble to these people.

Would someone please explain to me the mentality of someone who finds Breitbart to be a real, respectable journalist to me kthxbai?

* All liberals are evil
* Breitbart attacks liberals
* Therefore, Breitbart’s ethics are unassailable

You might think I’m being sarcastic or oversimplifying.  I’m not.

If you claim to be a Former Conservative Who Became a Damn Dirty Hippie Liberal, chances are no one outside the liberal community will know anything about it…

Case in point - John Cole.  His liberal commentators still twit him for his former wingnutttedness; we certainly don’t regard it as an asset.

But we’re not authoritarian followers.

Seconding schism: it’s nothing but tribalism at this point. If you take Breitbart at all seriously about anything, it is only because you want to.

Would someone please explain to me the mentality of someone who finds Breitbart to be a real, respectable journalist to me kthxbai?

Also seconding schism/#28 and GDDavis/#30. But also, all the “mainstream” media are, of course,  lying liberal hacks. Therefore anything you hear there is a lie. <b>Also<b> following - and here’s the kicker - anything you don’t hear from them must be true! The reason the liberal media aren’t covering Breitbart’s latest newsfart is that they’re trying to sweep it under the rug!

It’s classic conspiracy theorist thinking.

PiatoR-  I’m going to remember your definition of liberal as someone who “insists on bringing facts to a rant-fight”.  Good one!

Well, you know how it is.  They pull out a racist factoid; we pull out a cite to the truth. They accuse us of being anti-Christian; we calmly keep citing facts.  They compare us to Stalin, intent on eating Christian babies so we can defecate all over America while wiping our asses with the Stars and Stripes in between raping nuns, having orgies on Hitler’s grave, and scouting out buildings for Al Qaeda; we tell them that they’re morons.  And then they gasp, haul out the fainting couch and whine about how “uncivil” we are. THAT’s the Wingnut way!

Mighty Ponygirl@27:

Albert—my theory on this is that gay republicans feel that their <strike>rights</strike> personal privileges are better guaranteed by the money they have, and so they do everything to maximize their money (by throwing in with the party of “lower taxes” even though that in and of itself is a canard).

FTFY!

Ms Kate—well, not necessarily. I’m sure that both LCRs and Democrats can agree that not having your homo ass curb-stomped for being queer is a “right.” But if the Dems aren’t willing to put forward more than a half-assed effort to get that right enshrined in law, then LCRs will look for ways of securing that right for themselves through personal privilege. And to do that, you need money.

The “right” of having same sex marriage can be more or less purchased with enough attorneys and accountants and influence. With the right documents, you can guarantee that you have enduring power of attorney and won’t be kept from your partner’s side at a hospital bed, and estate planning will make sure they get the money you left for them. With enough influence you can make sure that your loved one has a job that carries health bennies so you don’t have to worry about not being allowed to share domestic partner benefits (or paying the extra tax on it as income). With enough money, you can basically rewrite legal realities in this country.

I can’t believe there are also gay Republicans.  These one-issue or a few-issue Republican groups make no sense, all issues if you really think about it are connected.  There has to be a lot of cognitive dissonance for a gay person to be for gay rights and then be against the environment or unions or raising the minimum wage.

They’re the children of wealthy to ultra-wealthy people who grew up beyond the need for human rights.  They had so much privilege that essentially no one could assail them.  They could have orgies or monogamous relationships behind close doors.  Their gilded offices were in the know of their sexuality and they could honestly care less about their homosexual counterparts in the lower ranks of the economy.  They just want gay rights because they want them.  It isn’t even a moral issue so much as a personal one for them, they merely feel slighted by not having the right to marry and protection under the law but don’t care about the greater umbrella of rights that extend to all others. 

Being a single-issue voter generally falls into two categories : Class-privileged or single-minded.  Gay Republicans are the former and gun voters are the latter.  Libertarians are just liars or believe in a society that vaguely existed about 170 years ago.

Good analysis, xeranar.
Amanda, I’d say I’m not a violent woman, but looking at that smirking visage makes me question that assumption.
To eleven.

I think, at most, a lot of them are claiming that ‘had liberal parents and/or grew up in a liberal state’ qualifies as ‘used to be liberals.’ I heard Breitbart’s accounting of his ‘conversion’ once in an interview on C-SPAN radio that amounted to nothing more than this.

To the teenaged head of the campus Young Republicans it was attending a liberal arts school. Nothing says lefty-hedonistic youth like watching other people campaign for a living wage across the quad.

PIATOR @29

I think it’s also because most liberals come to liberalism through actual held beliefs and analysis of reality as well as empathy for our fellow man. Whereas conservative ideologies are often about tribalism and being “demonstrably” a member of the tribe.

So when a conservative sees a “former liberal” (actual evidence of real liberal old values may discount the value of this), they see someone who renounced sin and embraced the light who can tell us the dirty secrets of the depraved things “that tribe” is getting up to (which they are forbidden to witness directly, less they be “tainted”). It becomes a benefit because they get to tell you “approved” “forbidden” stories and show how your path was the more moral one that even smart people who consider both sides come to.

Whereas a liberal is generally sure of their worldview and not looking for hollow affirmations. Furthermore they are often used to debating with people with regards to very dumb or mean-spirited arguments (women/blacks just don’t have the brainpower for X, gay people target children, tax cuts make the economy good, etc…).

So when they see a “former conservative”, they see someone who used to think the “conservative arguments” weak that they are had merits and thus had severe empathy or knowledge issues. As such, most liberals treat “former conservatives” with a grain of salt, expecting them to backslide into whatever privileges or bigotries enticed them to conservative argumentation in the first place.

It probably doesn’t help that a number of conservatives will troll liberals by pretending to be “recent liberal converts” who’ve been “scared back to conservatism” by some meaningless and pathetic action X that is supposed to be seen as worse than anything a conservative does or is still doing. (Such as I supported OWS until I found out that the protestors were playing loud bongo drums, and that lost my support for those vile hippies, the cops should continue pepper spraying those freaks).

Those two attitudes alone probably say more about who’s got the facts and meaningful arguments on their side before you start actually weighing in how the facts and history proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It probably doesn’t help that a number of conservatives will troll liberals by pretending to be “recent liberal converts” who’ve been “scared back to conservatism” by some meaningless and pathetic action X that is supposed to be seen as worse than anything a conservative does or is still doing. (Such as I supported OWS until I found out that the protestors were playing loud bongo drums, and that lost my support for those vile hippies, the cops should continue pepper spraying those freaks).

Indeed. Let us not forget the hysteria over the most MarxistKenyanForeignSocialist President EVAH!!!! (which most people would see as a mainstream moderate Democrat trying to cope with a bad situation, and being co-opted or otherwise badly compromised by the corporate interests)

xeranar: I think for some conservative queers it’s a little more complicated than that. They’re not completely insulated (gaybashings can happen right outside the best of clubs, and viruses don’t discriminate), but they do want to be different from those loud swishy types in leather and piercings. So republicanism is the only way to do it. (Or maybe they want to be the same as those loud swishy types and just can’t admit it, but then republicanism is still the answer.)

What gets to me is the fact that you have closets at both ends of the power gamut. And the bottom end, because anyone could beat you up or fire you or otherwise destroy your life if they found out you were gay. At the top end, because you and your friends could destroy anyone’s life if they said in public that you were gay.

Yeah, this whole thing makes a lot more sense if you understand that conservatives don’t consider members of their disliked groups to be human beings.  It’s the final evolution of the conservative obsession with in-group/out-group dynamics.

So Breitbart is gay?
Pfft.  Wouldn’t surprise me one bit.  Most of the GOP are a pack of closet-jobs, & the man always smelled like Rough Trade to me.