Are Du Gays/Lesbians thin skinned when it comes to folks like Matthews?

[KoKo]

I think there are more important issue than Matthews.....but Matthews has known issues which HE, HIMSELF has put on the table about his view of sexuality.

Why should we be shy about Matthews. Why, should we be shy about Anne Coulter....who has also displayed an affinity for briing "bodily" issues to the table of political discussion. What about David Brock?

sexuality has been made an issue by the RW Repugs.....and by Liberal Dems who want reforms? Why is this issue a "no, no" to be discussed?

Reading through the latest Matthews's bashing thread here on DU it struck me that if one just laughs at Matthews through many posts on DU and speculates about his weird trashing of Dems for clothing and physical attibutes...while propping up Repugs as being Macho, with their Masculinity and Maleness ever present in clothing, appendages, and demeanor......then one is okay.

But when someone posts a "blunt, in your face" post titled that "Matthews is Gay!" then all hell breaks loose on DU.

Suddenly it's an ISSUE! WHY?

Here's a reply I made to a poster on that thread.....because the whole post and thread got on my nerves.....there was an HYPOCRACY issue there! Why doesn't Chris who says he's a Dem all the time on one hand (Tip O'Neil credentials, whatever and yet has bashed Gore and other Dems for "Brown clothes" not being "masculine enough" but goes on and on to the point where there are weekly posts on DU about him talking about "physical characteristics" of the maleness of Repug candidates......and then starts to switch back and talk about "Howard Dean's biceps..."FGS come under scrutiny by our Gay DU'ers. We are asking for help here, not to trash you. Matthews needs to get in touch with something......what if he IS GAY? Why can't gay DU'ers help us with this???

Here's what I said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews is the one who made "homo/hetero Erotic" The ISSUE!



NOT DU Posters who noticed the guy needs to square himself with his inner feelings. He has a big divide
between the "homo-erotica posts he does about "biceps, cod pieces, clothing in shades of brown, and the
other stuff I've heard and seen posted by DU'ers here on thread after thread.

I think if he's gay he really needs a "mentor" to help him "out himself."

Is that being a "gay basher" to say that? I don't think so........Chris Matthews in post after post and stuff
I've heard myself has a real sexual identity problem. DU'ers see it.......why should those who see it be
bashed as "anti-gay?"

I don't understand.....Why"

[AP]

1. I have two things to say about this:

(1) Matthews's statements about Dean have nothing to do with Matthews's sexuality and everything with creating a mood in America which puts a premium on masculine politicians. This is only to serve conservative ends. If you don't believe it, do some research on the sort of propaganda the right used to ram through the Spanish American war and American imperialism.

(2) I guarantee you that Rove is looking to use sexuality as a wedge issue on the left. They're going to try to lure Democrats into criticising Republicans for being gay (Schwarzenegger, eg) and then they're going to siphon off gay Democrats into the Repulbican party as a result. Democrats who think all's fair in politics, will bite at the bate. They'll be doing their party a big disservice.

[KoKo]

7. AP I posted a long post thanking your.....because I thought you made a

great post to me.......and I answered it......with another question. The DU "Bug" somehow "ate" my post........and I'm too tired to ry to retype it all from memory.

Anyway.......I hear ya! Though your post made a good point......and had a question or two....but, maybe someone else will ask those questions. I don't know why some replies disappear.....went into my "history" to try to find it....but it's gone.

Thanks, much, though. I was being honest in my question, I was not looking to start a flame....and I feel, so far, that those who have posted understood what I was trying to say.

We need to talk about this. It WILL be an issue in the coming Primary and Campaign........We need to talk about it here.....without flames and recognize that all of us have our own hypocritical agendas which we don't alway see. Not to let it fester.

Matthews needs to do something about his identity crisis. But, for us to recognize it.......means we should try to have a dialog. There are too many posts here on DU not to do this. There is something there....as there is with Coulter that's being picked up by us.......we need to explore it........get it out on the table.

That was the point of my post......and even bringing Brock into it......There's an issue here......festering.

:-)'s to you.....I heard ya!~

[bearfartinthewoods]

100. tweety isn't gay...read down thread for first hand info from a gay DUer

who actually knows him.

[ulysses]

2. got schooled about this while I was modding a while back

during the whole "Jeff Christie" thing. Where some of us see ironic justice in the idea of Limbaugh or Matthews being closeted gays, others see homosexuality being used, by the left, as a plague to wish on one's enemy. It's something to bear in mind, KoKo.

[Prodemsouth]

3. Have they considered we are questioning hypocracy?

The book Queer in America, called it reporting/outing. Looking into Matt Drudge's sex life is reporting, because it is news worthy if he is gay, because he supports politican's with anti gay views. Not all gay people at DU are thin skinned, in fact most are not, but some are, and they are very loud when they get angry. It is not ironic justice that motivates people on questioning right wingers sexual or. it is that we have seen this more than a few times before and wonder when we find an adult unmarried or not in a typical marriage gay basher or gay basher supporter. We don't understand when certian gays seem to get upset about this. I would think most gays would agree that closeted anti-gay gays are very damaging.

[ulysses]

5. I suspect that they have

although it's not for me to say.

it is that we have seen this more than a few times before and wonder when we find an adult unmarried or not in a typical marriage gay basher or gay basher supporter. We don't understand when certian gays seem to get upset about this.

Careful with that stereotype, you could put an eye out.

The DUer who brought the subject up most forcefully when I was modding is not someone that I'd describe as "thin skinned" at all. You might give some thought to the idea that, to some folks, it's simply wrong.

[Prodemsouth]

21. With respect I ask, what stereotype are you talking about?

maybe I need to be clearer.

[ulysses]

26. here

It's somewhat difficult to parse your post, but this is the passage I meant.

and wonder when we find an adult unmarried or not in a typical marriage gay basher or gay basher supporter.

[KoKo]

4. Uly......we've got to get together and talk about this then....it's going

to be a BIG issue in the coming campaign.....If we can't talk without offending each other here on DU' then where can we talk? That's my problem with it. I truly think people like Matthews who are repressing something (I only say that because he has made sexuality an issue, as I said in my post) should be discussed. Why shouldn't we know what motivates the Pundits and newsfolks. as an agenda.......which is as important as any group of Americans who feel they need attention because of disenfranchisement in the system coming together and fighting for rights.

But, when exclusiveness comes into the debate......where one can't say anything in a Liberal Forum about an agenda by a Pundit and speculate about his/her motivations of those who report our news and shade it to their advantage......then how can we say we are reallyhaving a dialog?

To me (as extreme as it sounds) it's like having to discuss "sexuality in politics" in a special DU Forum like what happened to the I/P discussions. They got so contentuous they had to be move to a special place on DU.

If Gay Rights and Gay issues are to become "mainstream" then we need to hash them out.....not put them in some place like G/H on DU or in our whole American Dialog over the future of our country.

????????:shrug:

[ulysses]

6. so open a dialogue

(That usually works best when you don't start with the assumption that some folks you're inviting to a discussion are "thin-skinned") I understand the hypocrisy angle very well - some folks, who are closer to the question than you and I are, see it in a different light. Start a thread, air it out.

[KoKo]

10. Uly......I apologize.....I always do "yellow journalism headlines" and I'm

tired and have so many "typos" in my posts, I wonder I can be understood. Have been editing furiously and I really wish I could do more to start a dialog......I thought I did.....with my "confrontational" post......but tried to qualify it....

Oh well, I think as I keep beating a dead horse on........we need to discuss this all more. In a serious fashion but without flames......I don't think it can happen here......because it's still too contentious......So, rather than being a "broken record, repating and repeating with many typos....cause I'm tired......I'll leave it for another day.

It will come back to haunt us.......this issue......and Matthews harping on sexuality...but not now, maybe.

:-)'s and peace to you......

[ulysses]

15. you don't need to apologize to me

if to anyone for that matter.

Homosexuality will certainly continue to be an issue. I'll see if I can help with the dialogue.

[Not a robought]

8. Let's say he ends up being gay?

Then what?

By the way, Richard Chamberlain is on now with Larry King and just recently came out. You should probably check it out since you seem to be so preoccupied with being gay.

[Cheswick2.0]

9. you know that is not helpful

I think Koko is tying to understand.

[Not a robought]

14. Here I'll change the semantics then

By the way, Richard Chamberlain is on now with Larry King and just recently came out. You should probably check it out since you seem to be so preoccupied with public personalities' homosexuality.

[KoKo]

20. Nota, I've known for 30 years that Chambelain was Homosexual!

I still loved him in all his movies.......The word was out way back....but it was a whispered word...and we knew. But, if he suddenly showed up on Matthews show talking about gay priests and pedophiles after doing the most beloved series of all time "The Thorn Birds" then he would leave himself open to some discussion about the issue.

Of course, Matthews has not starred in any series where his sexuality would be at issue....unless one counts "Hardball" and his contst ant references to male anatomy.......and some would say....it's not the same as Chamberlain in Thornbirds or whatever.

[DemLikr]

13. Thank you for the heads up on the Chamberlain/LK interview.

I had forgotten about it, and I appreciate the reminder.

[DemLikr]

11. KoKo01...

Thank you for posting this, and the perspective/attitude you bring to it.

Best of luck.

[Cheswick2.0]

12. I understand what you are saying...why can't we call out the Hypocrites?

but on the other hand I understand, or try to, when someone who is gay tells me they are offended by us using being gay as an insult. I can't completely get a grip on it anymore than I can completely get a grip on race issues. So I choose to have faith that the people who are offended are sincere in their objections. Therefor I take them at their word and act accordingly.

[DemLikr]

16. Cheswick...

Gay people differ widely on this issue, as illustrated by the thread I started on which I was barbecued. So how do you decide which gay folks' feelings to honor by your behavior?

We always offend someone with an action or attitude...there is no pleasing everyone.

[Cheswick2.0]

19. the ones who are offended

If someone is not offended that is fine, and you would certainly have a right to do as you please(and suffer the retorts). But then I don't have to worry about your feelings do I, since you are not upset?

[DemLikr]

31. But I AM upset! I am weeping inconsollably at this moment...

...not.

So do you mean to say that the group that screams and moans and whines the loudest wins the day? And shuts down free expression by those intimidated by their hurt feelings?

They can't convince others by the weight of their arguments, so they drown their voices in crocodile tears...

Is DU in danger of becoming...A Tyranny of Whiners?

Hmmm...book title? Not that I've ever written one...

[Cheswick2.0]

34. I think you need to step back before you presume to put words in my mouth

I think you are misrepresenting yourself here and I don't appreciate it.

[DemLikr]

41. Please expand on that vague insinuation. Thanks. n/t

[ulysses]

17. I think that's the point

I can't completely get a grip on it anymore than I can completely get a grip on race issues. So I choose to have faith that the people who are offended are sincere in their objections. Therefor I take them at their word and act accordingly.

Well said.

[KoKo]

23. But, Uly..."I take them at their word and act accordingly..." Think about

the ramifications of that statement? Blind trust to those we believe are doing the best for us...have our interests at heart? In the world we live in where lies are spread as truth and truth as lies......how can that statment stand as a defense of those who have a sexual, or political preference.

Trust us......those of us you know will do the best for you????? Do you hear what this says????:scared:

[ulysses]

25. ?

Taking the word of gay folks concerning gay issues is hardly the same as taking the word of conservatives concerning...well, anything.

[DemLikr]

32. Excuse me...hello? I too am a gay person.

And I was earlier toasted by a few of my "fellow" gay "folk" for the unspeakable crime of disagreeing with them on a "gay issue."

Please don't squelch your thinking or your expression on this board to accomodate the lowest common denominator.

It's nothing new that those who are unable to support an argument scream the loudest to drown out other voices.

And it is a myth that the "gay community" marches in lockstep-thought on gay issues, as has been clearly demonstrated today.

[Cheswick2.0]

37. well it seems to me that you are the one screaming the loudest

and still the sincere objections of people who are not here screaming are more convincing to me. Wonder why that is?

[DemLikr]

43. Perhaps it's because you're not using your brain? n/t

[Not a robought]

39. While the gay community may not march in lockstep-thought

on gay issues, what has become clear is that not one of the many identified gay folk on this board has come forward to defend you and this topic. You would think someone would if this was a gay issue that some could support or disagree with. But nope.

That being said, I was really beginning to wonder if your purpose was to out the outers.

Your top level message seems to be that people who are gay and in the closet harm the gay community... but I can't really speak on your behalf because you weren't forthcoming with that message, instead it's mostly been vitriol.

[DemLikr]

42. Oh bullshit. My posts were pretty as punch until the nasty attacks began.

It's no wonder most "self-identified" gay DUers wouldn't step forward to support my position. They'd get their tongues ripped out by types such as yourself, and everyone has to pick and choose their fights.

I picked this one, so as Shrub says, Bring it On.

BTW, good morning.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

64. Guess what? I support you to a point.

I think that if Lindsey Graham is gay he should be OUTED BIG TIME. I think if RICK SANTORUM is gay, he should be outed BIG TIME ( after all he compared the sexuality to beastiality)

I DON'T, however, think Matthews has been a gay basher and I don't believe in outing in all circumstances. Point one.

Point two..is you could have "clean hands" in the argument that it brings out the hatred of others which leads to downright homophobic language but you were still the catalyst for the behavior.


And a small communication for Koko ....please substitute this issue (gay bashing and thin skin) with your pet peeve (south bashing) and see if you still feel the same way.

[Not a robought]

67. Good morning to you too

Types such as myself? I haven't ripped anyone's tongue out, I've discussed this with calm and rationality, anyone who read my posts would know this. You are mischaracterising me, which when considering what I've gleaned from reading these threads comes as no surprise.

[Cheswick2.0]

36. WTF are you talking about?

Would you like to explain how you got that out of what I said? Are you saying that when a friend tells me they are offended by something I should not trust that friend? Am I supposed to say "oh well I am going to continue calling people fags because they hate that and it will reflect badly on them in general society. So if you object, well you have a "gay aggenda" and I think you are a fake and a liar and don't have my best interest at heart"?

Excuse me if I have misinterpreted you, but really, what are you talking about?

K, I have read several of your posts where I thought you were, shall we say, not a fan of homosexuals. I chose to ignore it as your right and hoped maybe I was wrong. But now I see I wasn't wrong. I think this is your real issue.

[Prodemsouth]

18. I don't like to use the word hypocrites on this issue.

Because that would seem to imply gay is bad. What would be a better word? I descibed it simply reporting, not "outing" Example: __________
is really gay and he/she supports anti-gay politicans. That to me is news

[Cheswick2.0]

22. yes it is news

I think you are right.

[KoKo]

24. Matt Drudge is an example of a puzzlement to me. Many of us feel he is

gay.....he's mentioned in Brocks book. I don't know for a fact that he is gay....but what if his sexual preference guides his "headlines on his website. We know that Tom DeLay is a RW Christian Fundie (we have been told that, and there's some evidence) and we assume he will always vote with RW Christisan Fundies.

So, if we look at Drudge should we say: Drudge is a homosexual and he will pick posts out that support his agenda because we know from Brock's book and other things that he is a homosexual. But, what if Drudge decides he wants to not exploit his website to promote a homosexual agenda......so he goes out of his way to post some anti-Gay posts....maybe he makes an effort to ONLY post anti-gay posts......At what point does what we surmise from reports and a book about Drudge start to cloud our judgement about what he puts out on his website. And, how do we know that he is a RW'er or in fact that Tom DeLay is a RW Christian Fundie and so therefore will always vote with his or their beliefs to the exclusion of any other ideology or sexuality.

Excuse my broad brush putting DeLay and Drudge in the same camp because to all known accounts DeLay isn't a homosexual and has never been linked in a book to sexual preferences......but I was trying to use examples of folks we here on DU are familiar with, have made judgements about........and yet one ....Drudge....may not be what we think?

convoluted logic......I know.....but it's my point........

[ulysses]

27. KoKo

check out roughsatori's reply here - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=261533#261635

[KoKo]

28. Uly......I would agree with that post if Hillary had an egregious past of

talking about the characteristic of her fellow female Senators or House Members. Talking about their "large swelling breasts, their obvious large pelvic frame making them a good "bearer of children easily," the "healthy head of hair of Kay Bailey Hutchinson and her obvious estrogen domininace by adopting babies in her late fifties..showing that she is a "total Earth Mother" of abundant life forces with a womb that couldn't bear....but with a heart that was open to those who had fruitful wombs....

I could go on with this but I hope you understand my point that if Hillary Clinton were making these comments all over the airwaves then DU'ers would be all over her...criticizing and wondering what her problem/or agenda was.....(she's been called a lesbian by the Right Wing but there have never been any Du'ers who have been hyping that in all my time here).

However, Chris Matthews has been doing this since before "Selection 2000" and it started with Gore and his "brown earth tones, and that he appeared to have gained weight...was plump...or whatever....yet Shrubbie was described as exuding masculinity......and Matthews reved up his descriptions from the "Selection" on and on every chance he got. There have been numerous threads on DU pointing out what he has said.....and I heard him myself before I started to boycott him.

I repeat! Matthews has made sexuality an issue.......so he needs to be questioned as to why? Is it him and his problems that he constantly goes into sexual extasy (and yes.....people and I have heard him almost swoon over Bush) and we aren't supposed to wonder if he isn't having some identity problem? If it isn't a problem are we to believe that Matthews sees this swooning and drooling over biceps and male growth packages as something we folks should be focused on politically. Like he's sending us a message for the coming campaigns? It has nothing to do with him.....that he makes these comments.....he's only observant???

:shrug:

[Not a robought]

29. I am having a hard time understand the leap to the conclusion

He comments on earth tones & physical appearance of political figures... umm, got anything anymore empirical?

One of my best friends is the most meticulous person I know regarding fashion. He subscribes to GQ, is buffed-he works out on a regular basis and never appears in public unless he is dressed sharply and takes his time styling his hair and owns cologne and other body care products. He will also notice physical characteristics of others, male or female. Is your gaydar tingling? Well he's also fanatical about hockey, football & soccer and has women falling for him all the time but stays committed to one girl despite that. He can't cook, has no other taste for music except rap, is right handed and works as an art director. Gaydar still tracking?

Tweety on the other hand is a PROFESSIONAL TALKING HEAD. Kind of like the actors on Queer as Folk who DON'T HAPPEN TO BE GAY but play one on TV (except for the self-professed ones). He meets with his staff before a broadcast to go over each and every talking point to the last meticulous one. It's all pretty much predetermined.

If he were at all fearful of being out of the closet, why would he even go a mile near comments which could hint that?

We've gone down this sad road before with rightwingers and for what it's worth I'll bring up that history, perhaps if anything for some vicarious vengeance. Personally I'd just rather put it behind:

http://backwhen.com/whereare.asp?WhereID=11

Where Are They Now?
Roy Cohn
Born: February 20, 1927 Died: August 2, 1986

Roy Cohn, chief counsel to Joe McCarthy in 1952, single-mindedly ferreted out suspected communists and homosexuals in the government. After resigning from McCarthy's staff in 1954, he continued over the next 30 years as superlawyer for the rich and famous. His conduct finally led to disbarment in 1986 just weeks before his death from AIDS. While seen at many gay nightclubs and surrounded by boys and male prostitutes he vehemently denied being gay even when dying.

If you want to see the height of hypocrisy on the right regarding homosexuality, just google Cohn's name, tons of stuff. It wasn't limited to the government only either, the fear of homosexual association spread to private business and personal relationships as well.

I don't know, maybe because I was born after that ugly mess of history, I find it really odd to focus on sexuality. Everything about that time really does sound ugly. I'd rather stay part of the crew that has started fresh and doesn't harbor any of that old residue. No one I know makes an issue out of anyone's sexuality and I hadn't heard anyone scream fag at anyone since grade 3.

edit: for grammar

[KoKo]

30. There is nothing "wrong" with Matthews being Gay/ or having problems

because he had an overly dominant father (which is my own personal belief about him..it's a father problem, not that he's gay) but his behavvior of personalizing maleness by such strong attention to physical attributes or the lack thereof, are what many people here on DU find "out of the mainstream" in the Pundit world. His behavior and obsession about "manliness" are unusual. Therefore.......we ask why? Matthews has made a point of focusing on Democrats by saying they are "weak....don't measure up in the manly department, choose clothes that are wrong or illfitting, etc. etc.

Why? Is he in conflict with his own masculinity? Why is that subject taboo? It might give insight and understanding into why he does what he does. Otherwise he invites ridicule for his obnoxious behavior in constant threads here. Maybe we should try to understand what makes Matthews tick? Why not?

[Not a robought]

35. I take it then that you perceive Tweety to be a threat.

His behavior and obsession about manliness as you put it, play to an audience, otherwise it wouldn't appear on TV.

It is a show for political entertainment purposes and not much insight, it is TV afterall. All of this just makes it sound like the cult of personality belonging to Tweety is getting way too much credit and attention than what it is worth, and the more you give him, the better it is for him. I just see him as a parody.

Maybe instead of asking what makes Matthews tick, you could ponder on why America is so preoccupied with sex and sexuality?

I've answered your questions and made the above points several times, both in this thread (even in the post above you are replying to) and in DemLikR's, yet I keep seeing the same questions come back. Perhaps this is a generational gap thing best left unbridged.

You know what I think when I see threads like this? America needs to watch less TV. (In the least change the channel)

edit: typo

[bearfartinthewoods]

47. ok...dicussing tweety

your premise is that tweety is gay? based on what?

in the previous thread, in we were treated to such insights as follows:

"he (tweety) talks real fast " in reference to tweety's demeanor when discussing bush.

tweety talks fast most of the time. it's like his trade mark. what makes the SNL skits funny is their portrayal of his fast talking and shouting.

"how "Manly" he looked " as an alledged quote of tweety's in reference to bush's plopping onto the carrier.

i ask you, did bush look effimenant that day? hardly...
just because we don't want to admit it, the photo op and the costume worked. he did look 'manly', in the strereotypical depiction of manliness which has been ingrained in our society. ALMOST EVERY PUNDIT remarked on it in one way or another. tweety did it with the same sort of teenage enthusiam that he brings to every subject.

"gushing about Dean's "muscular arms""

again...are Dean's arms spindly? no. they are muscular and he knows it and his people know that muscular arms are favored by a certain portion of society so that's why his sleeves are solled up to show his arms. are you saying that anyone who favors muscular arms is gay? or that anyone who comments on muscular arms is gay?

"his voice becoming hoarse" as a sign that he's sexually aroused by bush.

anyone who talks as fast and as much and as loudly as tweety is gonna get hoarse.

"and generally looks like a pussy" as a description of tweety

do i even have to say anything about this little slice of bigotry?

OK...so there is the "proof" as laid out in the weekend titterfest.

are you comfortable with this level of documentation? the fact that tweety has a loud fast talking style and a demeanor that may be considered unprofessional or even gushing with teenaged enthusiasm
combined with the fact that he comments on the effects of carefully staged representations of manliness (bush/flightsuit and Dean's muscularity) is sufficent proof of his gayness in you estimation.

<sarcasm>
i have further proof that may suit you. i heard tweety tell Barney Frank that he "loves having you on the show". now that's the cincher isn't it.

</sarcasm>

[Creideiki]

104. Hey Nota

Your friend will figure it out someday. ;)

[dsc]

33. Let me try

First, I think we need to distinguish between outing people who really are gay and outing ones that meet some or many stereotypes of being gay. While neither behavior is acceptable to me, the second is much worse. Matthews falls in the second category.

Second, With exceptionally rare exception, these threads aren't about people we like and admire. There aren't Nader is gay threads, or Wellstone was gay threads, or Kucinich is gay, or Dean is gay, or what have you. Just why is that? Nader is unmarried at close to 60 years of age. Under the 'standards' of some of these threads he should have been a natural. Yet no such threads to be found.

Those facts combine to make one wonder what people who post these threads think of being gay. Matthews is not, to my knowledge, anti gay. He doesn't go around advocating anti gay legislation. So it is hard to justify as hypocrisy. I don't like Matthews but I can't honestly call him anti gay by the normal standards of punditry.

I stayed out of the thread due to it not being nearly as obnoxious to me as the Limbaugh/Christie threads which infuriated me no end. But, at the end of the day, this is still using a stereotype of gays to denigrate someone we don't like. I fail to see why I should consider that uplifting, honorable, or for that matter a liberal victory.

I hope this helps explain why this gay isn't too thrilled by these threads.

[comsymp]

38. Extremely well said

Hadn't planned on diving into this muck but I've gotta give you a high-five for nailing this issue down so well, mostly because this gay isn't too thrilled by these threads either.

First, I think we need to distinguish between outing people who really are gay and outing ones that meet some or many stereotypes of being gay.

Stereotypes, indeed- so Tweety waxes poetic over *'s swagger- BFD. It strikes me as 1950's thinking to assume that any man who makes observations, pointed or subtle, about another man's appearance must be gay. Straight men don't do that? Kinda like boys don't cry, I guess....

See, that's part of what I've found offensive in the attitudes of some members. The gay stereotypes all seem to be alive and well. The other aspect I've found particularly offensive is the attitude which several folks (on several threads) have responded to: the use of the gay label as a way to attack someone. That's pretty offensive to me and NOBODY who'd do that is a Liberal, IMNSHO. Again, you nailed it when you said:
But, at the end of the day, this is still using a stereotype of gays to denigrate someone we don't like.

I don't feel particularly thin skinned about the issue but I DAMN SURE object to the stereotypes and the attempt to use sexual orientation to denigrate. "It's About Hypocrisy", my ass- you're right, he isn't some right-wing thought leader who rails against GLBT issues. Therefore, any attempting at "outing" is strictly for smear purposes, as I see it.

But I've also gotta say that I've been extremely surprised by some of the responses to the earlier thread- looks like I owe a couple folks apologies for having pegged them as much farther to the right than their attitudes and tenacity on this would suggest they actually are.

[bicentennial_baby]

48. Thank you!

"It strikes me as 1950's thinking to assume that any man who makes observations, pointed or subtle, about another man's appearance must be gay. Straight men don't do that? Kinda like boys don't cry, I guess...."

Exactly, and well put, imo.

[DemLikr]

45. The DIFFERENCE, for the millionth time, is the hypocrisy

Tweety does indeed support Shrub, regardless of paying lipservice to his own alleged liberality. And Shrub and his regiime are a conduit for a deluge of anti-gay, anti-freedom legislation and attitudes.

I don't recall Nader attacking gay people, or hosting a show which promotes gay haters like Ann Fag-Hag Coulter lately.

And, just so you know, words like "Fag Hag," "Fag," "Queen," "Queer," "Slut," "Whore," "Flamer," "Screamer," "top," "bottom," "Butch," "Fem," etc., etc., etc. are extremely common in the "gay community. Anyone who claims otherwise is not credible.

AGAIN, it is not Tweety's sexuality that is a negative, it is his HIDING OF IT, which perpetuates the assumption in this society that gayness is BAD.

Why do you and yours refuse to acknowledge the distinction between one's sexuality and one's lies and deception and hypocrisy regarding it?

I can only conclude you refuse because that is your carefully considered CHOICE. To acknowledge that distinction would threaten your current attitudes and assumptions, and god forbid, we can't have THAT, now can we?

And, most telling of all, why do you embrace the assumption that being called gay is a SLUR, when in reality it either IS or IS NOT a fact and nothing more. My "slur" regarding Tweetster is that he is a LIAR and a HYPOCRITE and a self-loathing CLOSET CASE.

Not that this post will make any difference to the discussion, but it WILL allow me to vent.

Jeesh...

[bearfartinthewoods]

59. Why do you and yours refuse to acknowledge the distinction between

proof and suspicion? you talk as though it's a given that he's gay yet offer nothing even resembling proof of same.

come on...lay out your proof again.

he comments on bush's and Dean's appearance. what else?

[DemLikr]

60. I had his baby, OK??!! There, I said it, it's out!

...and I'm tired of living with the pain and no child support while he gets rich on TV backing right wingers.

[bearfartinthewoods]

76. i figured as much..

let's see...the base of the rant was tweety's hypocrisy backed by a claim of unacknowledged gayness for which nothing approaching substantive proof is offered.

me thinks perhaps someone was bored and decided to point the finger of gayness, wrapped in the glove of hypocrisy at a TV jerk who displeases.

what a progressive thing to do....

[DemLikr]

93. Get a sense of humor to match your tenacity and you might have a shot

at developing other traits in addition to sanctimoniousness.

[bearfartinthewoods]

103. unbelievable...

i proffer that this whole thing started as a way for someone to amuse themselves and you counter with a critique of my sense of humor.

i'll try very hard to make this simple.

this is not funny. people's sex lives are not something you screw with for amusement.

btw...did you happen to read downthread to the post from the DUer who actually knows tweety?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. The fact that those words are common in the gay community

doesn't mean they are all that empowering to the community. There is for sure a certain amount of self loathing in the gay community that allows for the condition to exist.

[DemLikr]

73. wouldn't you agree that MOST of those words are common

in straight society as well?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

75. Sure but so are racial slurs

That's why I wouldn't use the fact that they are common to bolster your argument...read my post above..I DO see your point and am not against it in total...only against the bigotry that surfaces as a result of it.

The fact that words are common is no argument that their use is empowering to anyone or that their use is harmless.

[dsc]

83. Your conduct belies what you say your problem is

If it is Tweety's dishonesty that is the problem all of the others in my example would be equally dishonest. The fact is, other than using a stereotype, you have evidence at all that Matthews is gay. You have no statements by men he slept with, no porno mags or internet stuff. You have nada. And if you had read my post would have realized that was one of my big problems with your crap.

As to the rest of what you wrote I have no clue as to why you directed it at me. The only times I have complained about slut and whore were when they were directed at women and gays don't direct those terms at women.

[DemLikr]

92. What cloister do YOU live in?

"gays don't direct those terms at women."

Uhm, yeah, that's right... :eyes:

[bearfartinthewoods]

51. it's not just tweety..

let's look at the proffered proof of other's gayness.

bush is gay because he has a gay friend and frequently travels to the city where said friend lives.

err...i have a gay friend and i not only travel to the city where he lives, i stay at his house. I have shared a bedroom, a tent and on one occasion when we got caught by a vicious cold snap while hiking, we zipped our sleeping bags together! guess what? the gay didn't rub off on me.

what about rush who is gay because he had a gay mentor who used to go shopping with him and give him advice. we now have a hit TV show about straight guys who get makeovers by gay guys. i guess all those straight guys have been turned by the encounter ehhh?

a lot of people have battled these sterotypes for decades. when i grew up, being friends with a gay guy was hazardous. assuptions were made. it was a horrible time.

gay teachers and coaches had to be so deep in the closet just to protect their safety, not to mention their jobs. even now, it's
iffy in many places to be openly gay in any sort of mentoring position. and why is that?

basicly, because of the myth of gay association...of the threat that gayness will rub off.

and here...at DU..the bastion of progressive thinking, we hear people use this level of "proof" ...people having gay friends or mentors ...as proof of people being gay and trumpet it openly with glee....unbelievable.

[Spentastic]

40. Well

I jumped feet first into that other thread because it irritated me no end.

Firstly the "evidence" presented for Matthew's homosexuality appears to be that he conforms to certain well accepted (but erroneous) gay stereotypes. This is not evidence; it's puerile gossip. If you saw him dancing well, or running fast would we see a headline saying, "Chris Matthews is Black"? Why not? Because it would be offensive?

dsc say's it better than I can. The reason that Matthews is being accused of being gay is so that people can use the term as a weapon. Doing it in the name of "exposing hypocrisy" doesn't cut it for me. Actually, it would appear to be hypocrisy writ large for the left to start running about denying people employment because of their sexuality.

[buddhamama]

44. disagree with you,KoKo

semantics maybe but you said

"sexuality has been made an issue by the RW Repugs.....and by Liberal Dems who want reforms?"

Sexuality might be an issue with RW repubs but, i disagree that Liberal DEMs have made sexuality an issue.

For Gays and Lesbians their sexuality is perhaps what sets them apart in our society but that 'difference' itself is not the issue, at least it's not for me, a liberal DEM.

for me, and i believe many others, it is about human/civil rights.
besides sexuality, how are GLBTs different than you and others?
They're not. Therefore they shouldn't be discriminated against or treated differently under the law.

The outing or disparaging remarks that are targetted towards RW about their sexuality, tends to equate being gay as a bad thing. which just perpetuates the discrimination. think about it...Why would someone be that afraid of being themselves that they'd have to hide in a 'closet'. discussing what is wrong in our society that encourages and supports this kind of hatred and discrimination would be time better spent in my opinion.

not by you necessarily but i have seen it.

[KoKo]

46. Why does Matthews continually make these remarks? I don't know of any

other talking head to constantly talks about "masculinity" as a verification of power. Matthews equites virility and appearance with Political Skill. His comments are quoted constantly on DU.

It's only when people question "Why" that folks get all upset assuming that folks who want to know what motivates the guy are gay bashers trying to "out" Matthews for some cruel reason.

The pundits who have made sex an issue are still doing it. Why shouldn't the people who are on our airwaves be subject to the same scrutiny and as give to the politicians they cover? It's only Democrats who get the scrutiny, btw. Clinton's sex life, Gary Condit's sex life........but look at Scwartzenegger. Wasn't Matthews going on about Aunold's virility...yadda, yadda.

That's what my post is about. Accusing fellow DU'ers of gay bashing.......or implying they are "secret gay bashers" or are not informed about how gays have been discriminated against is hurtful to those of us who feel discussion of issues shouldn't be shut down when fellow DU'ers ask honest questions about hypocracy. It's okay to laugh at what Tweety says or make fun of his comments........but not okay to try to figure out his motivation. If he's trying to appeal to a certain group....if he's being paid by GE to pump up sexual prowess, if he has some background motivation which makes him target Democrats as being "not being masculine enough enough" while pumping up the"virility of Republicans" using such obviously sexual terms......it's an issue for some of us as to his motivation.

[buddhamama]

52. uhmm...

i still don't get it. how does talking about a candidates masculinity lead to the suspicion of Matthews being Gay.

face it, the viewing of 'tough machismo' men as smart and capable is not new nor was it established by Matthews. it is reality. if he is playing to it that's a shame but i don't see how or why it should make people think he is GAY. that's BS.

btw,biologically speaking,we do it animals do it birds do it.
'we' have our criteria for what we think will make a good mate and/or provider.

And Women are a part of this too.How many discussions have taken place on DU about how a candidate's appearance affects their campaign and chances of wining.
Women are guilty of taken 'looks' into account,etc,etc. Why is there a difference.

Look at childhood heros. Older folks as children were into John Wayne and the like. Why? because he was seen a Man's Man.

see what i am saying?

[bearfartinthewoods]

56. i guess you never watched Phil Donahue ehhh?

he was a ground breaker. he talked about the images people project alot. funny...no on ever wondered if that made him gay....

could it be that he was on our side? why would we want to diminsh someone on our side by insinuating that he was (gasp) gay because he commented on bush's masculinity. he used to comment on Reagan's manly appeal too so i guess he's been in the closet a looooong time.

</sarcasm>

[booisblu]

49. Why would you assume he is gay?

There is not one gay friend that I know of that thinks the *ass is attractive. Certainly the lesbians find him gross and disgusting. So, apperently it's the straights that think he's good looking..but not the democratic straights. So, now we're down to the repub het's..so the question is, why do we care on this particular issue? The straight, white repubs are gonna vote straight, white repubs irregardless so if Tweety is reinforcing their image of the *ass, then he is doing his job.

Now, onto the other issues. It seems this board is constantly on the gay and lesbian issue. This election is so much more than that, however- we keep coming back to this one issue. In my opinion, it would be better if all gays and lesbians were out and showing the rest that we are all the same. I personally cannot live in the closet, it's ridiculous to me to lie about who and what I am. It takes too mush effort and really trashes self-esteem. But, and this is a big but- everyone has the right to privacy, unless they have purposely put themselves into the public eye, whether politics or celebrity.

Yes, this board does take on a gay bashing feel at times and I too, have found some threads very insulting and even cold in certain posters replies. Personally, I don't give a damn what any religion has to say about homosexuality, because I see very few doing good with religion to begin with. And to a large extent, that is where all the problems for us begin. It's always homosexuality in capital letters and all inclusive. What people don't see are the individuals wrapped up within. Those of us who are out are giving the hets a chance to see that we are not evil and have no agenda other than equal respect and equal rights under the laws. Those that are closeted are that way for a reason. We still live in an era and a country where fear dictates unimaginable decisions and hidden lifestyles. And seriously, I can't see a gay politician cutting his or her own throat by hurting gay rights. They won't always be in politics, but they will always be gay. So yes, if there is a gay politician out there, closeted, hurting gay rights- then by all means, we need to know.

Hope this helped answer your question!

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Gay DU and non-gay DU

I'm part of the latter. I am supportive of gay causes and have never treated a gay person any differently than I would anyone else.

However, I find this thread just as I found the other -- disgusting and disturbing. I think the gay members of the DU community need to be held to the same standards of behavior as everyone else.

There are two likely scenarios here. Either he is or isn't gay. In the first case, you are outing someone involuntarily because you don't like him. That to me is the equivalent of the worst type of right wing behavior. In the second case, you are trying to smear someone with the gay term because you don't like him. That is just as bad, but it also smacks of schoolyard actions where the term "gay" is automatically a bad thing.

Either way, I find it appalling behavior. If this kind of action was coming from people who were NOT gay, you would be upset as well.

Moral behavior is clear cut. Use the Hippocratic oath: "First do no harm." Is that what you are doing?

[KoKo]

54. Muddle...I'm not "outing Matthews" I'm the one who thinks ihe has a father

problem that he needs to attack Democrats sexuality and appearance. Did you read my whole post or just the thread replies.

I said we should discuss what "motivates" Matthews. If some folks feel he's gay.....then why not discuss it with out calling folks "bashers." If he has a father problem and is trying to constantly appeal to his dad with his sexual virility comments then that's worth discussing because Matthews is the one who makes these attacks and does it in a vicious way.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. This was thread comment and not a comment about you

But if some DUers think he's gay, who cares? Maybe some DUers think Arnold is gay or Madonna or whoever. It's none of their business.

[DemLikr]

82. Madonna frenches Britney on TV. Is their sexuality any of our business?

Seriously...please give me your thoughts.

[Muddleoftheroad]

96. Seriously?

No, but we can talk about the incident and how provocotive it was.

[DemLikr]

97. Yes, seriously, for the sake of discussion.

Does the fact that Madonna and Britney swapped spit on national television in any way legitimize a debate regarding the sexuality of one or both of them?

[Muddleoftheroad]

101. No

Because it is none of our business.

Clearly, I think we ALL know it was a stunt. But what if it wasn't? Who the fuck cares?

[DemLikr]

102. I disagree entirely with you on everything having to do with this subject

So...I agree with myself to disagree with you and will now let it go.

As I suspect you are not able to agree to disagree with anyone.

If I'm wrong, I apologize for that observation and say, as would Tigger in the Hundred Acre Wood, "Ta-ta for now!"

[bicentennial_baby]

53. koko...

I am wondering what your issue with homosexuals is. First it was the gay Bishop, and how you thought homosexual Episcopalians should start their own church, instead of being a part of yours. Now it's your fascination with Chris Matthews and what you perceive as his "closeted gay behavior". I'm not attacking you, I'm just genuinely curious as to what your true issue is.

[KoKo]

55. Ahhh, I get it now! Koko is really at heart an evil gay bashing troll who

has moved onto this board from the dark side. All my posts are designed to imply evil things about gays and I will insinuate my way into innocent DU'ers minds with my bashing......and in fact a search of all my posts on DU the last 2 1/2 years will reveal that every one of them contained a veiled reference to "Gays" or Gay behavior." Yes, you've "outed" me. LOL's :eyes: :evilgrin:

[DemLikr]

57. Now you see how it begins...

...nothing you write, no question you ask, no point you support, will be considered for its merit. You have now been...exposed.

:eyes: :eyes:

[bearfartinthewoods]

62. hmmmm....i wonder if tweety would write a similar sentiment

you know he does toast repubs on his show. his skewering of coulter's book leaps to mind. it was masterful and memorable.
he left her sputtering but, of course that doesn't count.


nothing he writes, no question he asks, no point he support, will be considered for its merit. he has now been...exposed.

ironic ain't it.....

[DemLikr]

69. Your obtuseness knows no limit, I see.

Tweetster always reminds his viewers what a "great writer" Ann Coulter is, and how he loves having her on the show. I saw the same show you're talking about, and the only reason his questioning seemed the least bit tough is that she is treated with kid gloves at all other times and on most other shows.

Give his views all the credence you wish. Just remember their source, and that many people believe he is a self-hating closeted homosexual. This informs your knowledge of his motives and his worldview.

[bearfartinthewoods]

77. who gives credence to TV talking heads????

not me for sure. i watch to see what his guests say. i'm curious as to what they want us to hear. tweety is not a fav because of his style...it's irritating to listen to him cut people off all the time.
but..he cuts off repubs as well as dems .....

you admit that he's the only one who took ann to task...given your estimation that he's shilling for the pubs because of his lust for bush, how do you explain his treatement of "treason".

btw...he also says he loves Barney Frank...what does that say?
he says the same about pat caudell and frank luntz.
he says the same about anyone who brings controversy (re:interest) to his show.

and as to your claim that 'many people believe"...

a person's belief in something for which he has no proof is just a person's belief. you are free to believe whatever you choose. but when you start to declare your beliefs are facts, without proof, somebody is likely to call bullshit.

and if you decide to try and dismiss someone by calling them gay someone's going to have issues with that as well.

[DemLikr]

81. Question for you:

If, in the very first original post of my original thread, I had written "I BELIEVE Chris Matthews is gay," would that have satisfied your complaint?

Please let me know. I have a followup comment.

[bearfartinthewoods]

84. it depends where you took it from there

working from the proof you and others have offered, i'd go back to my position that what a person believes is what a person believes.

but if you moved from some fantasy of his gayness to this lame line that he's a hypocritic and self hater, and we should view whatever he says through that lens, we'd be at the same point we are now.

your base theory is flawed so every theory that stems from it is also flawed.

i posted this previously but the DU post munching monster seems to have had it for lunch. trying again...

tweety is a font of hypocrisy..
he's a pro-choice catholic who neither renounces his pope and church or his views on abortion....the essence of hypocrisy.

he's was anti-iraq war yet was on of the most rah-rah pundits during the drive to baghdad....more hypocrisy.

how about the fact that he was born and bred as a dem...worked for liberals and liberal causes yet now has a job that requires him to feature repubs? maybe that's not hypocrisy..but it still pisses me off.

so much material with which to discredit him...stuff that's provable!
if your point was to attack tweety on his hypocrisy, why is it only the assertion of this illusion of gayness that gets your focus?

can't you understand that some of us are suspicious since it seems that you feel that the gay angle is the only that weapon is sharp enough to accomplish whatever goal is at the end of this....

probably more than you were looking for......

[bicentennial_baby]

61. Ok then

You can extrapolate whatever meaning you would like from what I wrote, it's a free country. So, if I thought you were a gay-bashing troll, why did I help you find your thread the other night?

You read into my post a bit much, I think. I just don't understand you, and was asking you about that which confuses me. I has a feeling it would be a wasted effort, and you haven proven me correct.

[KoKo]

63. I perceived a personal attack from your message, you said:

"First it was the gay Bishop, and how you thought homosexual
Episcopalians should start their own church, instead of being a part of yours. Now it's your fascination with Chris
Matthews and what you perceive as his "closeted gay behavior". I'm not attacking you, I'm just genuinely curious as to
what your true issue is. "


You asked what my "true issue is," and yet post after post I've replied.......hypocracy is my true issue about Matthews and his constant harping on "masculinity issues." I replied and replied.......and yet after all that your question implied that my true issue....I assume is an agenda against gays.....which was not my post.

As to the "Gay Bishop." The issue has wedged the Episcopal Church. Just today my local paper has another story about congregations here wanting to live the Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglicans...or become independent.

I posted about the issue because I'm an Episcopalian and the issue was affecting my church. I got wonderful responses from Du Gays who enlightened me on the issue from their point of view and indeed they gave me information about my churches current policies that I embarrassingly wasn't even aware of. I got reponses that were so kind and thoughtfully written that it really opened my mind on a number of questions I had. Instead of attacking me for my questions, those DU'ers took the time to discuss my feelings and then present their views and why they supported Reverend Gene Robinson. This is why I think DU discussion is positive. When we can discuss issues and not immediately assume a poster has an agenda. When DU goes bad.......it because we over react and make snap judgements. I've done it myself if I'm tired and cranky or having a bad day,(when I don't think sometimes before I post and go off at someone) but I try not to do it too often......and I hope others do, also. Still.........if we can't discuss without being attacked we will lose folks from this board who don't feel we are "open" here to discussing liberal points of view amonst ourselves.

Do you understand why I replied as I did, now?

:-)'s and peace to you.

[KoKo]

58. Yes, I'm going to ask the mods to lock this post.....the issue has been

discussed and not much else to say about it.

Thanks to all who replied.......:-)'s

[bearfartinthewoods]

65. interesting that the thread originator who wrote:

"........We need to talk about it here.....without flames and recognize that all of us have our own hypocritical agendas which we don't alway see. Not to let it fester." now wants the thread locked.

perhaps because someone is probing for unseen, hidden, hypocritcal agendas in inconvenient places?

it's not fun when people take a few comments and create a premise on someone's psychological quirks, is it?

perhaps we should remember this when we decide 'so and so is gay'....

[KoKo]

70. Bearfart.......see my reply to Bicentennial Babe.........

Maybe that will answer your question. But, your post to me is personal......we've gotten off the subject by making the posters who are replying the enemy and not discussing why Gay folks would object to Matthews behavior being discussed in terms of Gayness or family problems. We discuss George Bush's family problems and what has caused them constantly in trying to figure out why he is the way he is and does what he does.

Why not Matthews? He's the subject of so many thread here on DU constantly.....I thought it was time to find out why everyone who watches his show finds what he says offensive when he talks about "masculinity."

Now should we do a postand thead about Coulter......Maybe figure out why she's the way she is and what motivates her? Wouldn't it lead to some understanding?

[bearfartinthewoods]

79. i don't do the religion threads so i have no clue about the origins of

the questions.

my point is it's not fun to have total strangers picking a few random
statements and weave motives and hidden agendas out of it. i know your theory...about twwety and his dad issues. i just don't give a shit. i don't see the need to "understand" tweety anymore than i see the need to "understand michael moore".

they are entertainers. either i find them valuable in that role or i don't. since i don't really know them, any perceptions i might have on what makes them tick would be based soley on a performance and that's shaky ground IMHO.

as to my post to you being personal....i'll repeat my point.

is it's not fun to have total strangers picking a few random
statements and weaving motives and hidden agendas out of it.

which is pretty much what you are trying to do to tweety.

if doing remote psyche evaluations rocks your boat, i can't stop you.
i find it intrusive and, no offense, borderline creepy but i guess i don't even care enough to try and stop that.

but...the origination of this tweety interest was spawned by an unproven suspicion of gayness and that's a whole different animal.
i do care about the effects of unfounded rumors about people's sexual orientation and preferences. if this thread had been started with no reference to his gayness, i wouldn't even have bothered to open it.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[AquariDem]

68. What's going on?

I guess if I watched "Hardball," I'd get it. Could someone enlighten me?

[AquariDem]

74. maybe I don't want to know :)

[AquariDem]

91. Never mind, I guess no one wants to tell me

:(

[noiretextatique]

71. you are missing one BIG thing: masculinity is always an issue

in politics. remember noonan's gushing over reagan...and bush 43? and the wimp factor that defeated people like dukakis? this is nothing new, and certainly not particular to matthews. and finally...how much political hay do you think can be made from "outing" a minor television personality?

having said that, i'm all for outing rightwingers who are actually hypocrites, i.e., those actual closeted gays who use their status to advance an anti-gay agenda. as far as i know, matthews isn't one of them.

[piece sine]

80. Time to come out about Chris....

(If he reads this, he'll know it's me...) I know Chris Matthews. I know his wife Kathleen; I've meet their teenage son at a party. I am also close to a few of the producers, writers and researchers on both his shows. Chris Matthews is straight. That's not a value-judgement. I happen to be gay; he happens to be straight.

Political gays in Washington DC are vastly and intricately networked. I've argued fiercely with David Brock both befroe and after the "conversion." I like Andrew Sullican as a friendly person (we share several mutual friends who are greatcooks!) although I argue with Andrew about almost everything. We gays know our sub-culture. Chris isn't part of it, not even on the sly. Chris has a very HOT, progressive writer who is also hetro but who breaks all the gay guys' hearts with his beauty and wit.

Be careful of stero-typing modern METRO-sexuals who prefer sex with women but are quite comfortable with gays in many, many ways...sometimes only stopping short when it comes to sex with other guys. it's a very, VERY gray area.

I has reason to be in CNN's green room and my "gay-dar" when offwhen I met Wesley Clark. (He's intensely handsome in person and he seemed interested right back. BUT in the end, i was just projecting...and have no reason to think Wes bats for my team.

[KoKo]

85. If you know him and know his group,"piece sine" then why does he do what

he does on his show?

Who is telling him to point out "biceps, masculine bulges, manly image, sweat stained running shorts,
bulging appendeges, bulging necks, Churchillian, Rooseveltian, and other analogies Chris uses to describe Repugs......and Dean......

But, Al Gore got "he's changing to "Earth Tones...Browns" to enhance his campaign appearances due to consulting with a Democratic image consultant....

Why are there so many DU'ers posting in anguish because "Tweety" has talking about another "Sexual Fantasy" about his favorite "Manly Men?"

Your post is interesting as an "insider" but I'm left wondering how you answer my original post?

And what the Hell is a "Metro-Sexual???" I might have to do a separate DU post just to get what you're talkiing about..........!

Metro-Sexual sounds like a "bi-sexual" who doesn't have sex with their own......but might be convinced to.....if the situation was right??? :shrug: Really.......interesting your experiences.......You might be able to shed much light on our "Whore Media" since you are so involved with it? Will you share?

:-)'s and Peace.......thanks......Chris has a "Father Problem" though.......do you know anything about that??

[Not a robought]

86. you are still wondering?

You keep asking Why? Why? Why? Why are there so many DU'ers posting in anguish because "Tweety" has talking about another "Sexual Fantasy" about his favorite "Manly Men?"

and the answer has been delivered to you several times over yet you keep going back to the same question, with a different rewording. If you were truthfully interested in a real answer to that question, it would be obvious to you from reading here why.

I don't care for watching Matthews but it sounds like your dislike for him goes much farther than my ambivalence so let me ask you:

Would it make you happy if Matthews lost credibility, maybe even his job as a TV pundit? What if that came about because of rumour -- regardless that it's false, is that fair game? Well, if you endorse that sort of behaviour to discredit him then congrats, you have shown yourself to be a good supporter of right wing McCarthyism. That's what they did back then to make people they didn't like lose their jobs: they outed them, whether they were gay or not.

I'm curious, what era were you raised in Koko? And no, none of my questions to you have been rhetorical, they were all begging to be answered directly.

[KoKo]

87. Nota! My ability to ask "Why!" has frustrated more folks than you! WHY!

Yes.......the WHY! is always important to me....I like people....when they behave in some ways I don't understand....I always ask that question.....because I'm trying to understand...

If I can underestand where someone is coming from then I can make a decision whether I agree or disagree. :shrug: is that so odd?

[Not a robought]

88. hey asking questions is not odd at all

when people determine an answer for you, a judgement is made to frame it in a way that best suits the motives and the mindset of the question.

From the posts, it looks like the mindset was that Matthews was being suspected (not respected) of being gay and possibly being anti-gay based on unsubstantiated gossip, rumour and nuthin' else. Shouldn't be any surprise then that people will be intolerant of innuendo given the dirty history of America when that kind of thing was officially sanctioned.

Mix in some stereotypes and voila, people start to wonder about the motives of the dialog.

[bearfartinthewoods]

99. being suspected (not respected) of being gay

what a killer line. not just clever use of words but the crux of the entire issue.

i hope you don't mind if i use it the next time this drive starts?

[David Zephyr]

89. Matthews is Straight. End This Offensive Drivel.

n/t

[TheBigGuy]

90. Ive always thought he was straight , too....

no gaydar vibes there at all.

Now Ralph Reed and Gary Bauer..well....

[KoKo]

95. ROFL! Big Guy.....a great way to end this post....with some humor!

Thanks!

[Devlzown]

98. People should be clearer about what they mean.

If Chris Matthews is gay, that's not a big deal in itself. I think if he is gay, he's a very creepy gay guy -- worse than just an old troll. He's sitting around salivating while looking at pictures of George Bush on an aircraft carrier. What self-respecting gay man gets off looking at that unibrow troglodyte? If he's gay, then I put him in the same category as Hermann Goering. We've got to come up with a new word to differentiate between creeps like that and more discriminating gay men.