It is very predictable that if you give radical gay activists (some of whom are self indulgent and self absorbed) an opportunity to pose in front of portraits of demonized presidents, they will gladly oblige.
The result is this:
Nothing surprising about it in the least. They hate Ronald Reagan with a passion:
Strauss, who is also seen here, kissing her partner beneath the Reagan portrait, declined to comment for this story (“I’m keeping out of the press!” she texted me), but made crystal clear her position on Reagan by posting on Facebook a long list of things that happened under his watch, including the Supreme Court’s Bowers v. Hardwick decision, upholding the constitutionality of Georgia’s anti-sodomy law, the Iran-Contra affair and the invasion of Grenada.
Additionally, Strauss posted Reagan’s memorable statement on LGBT rights from the 1980 campaign trail: “My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn’t just asking for civil rights; it’s asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.”
“Yeah, fuck Reagan,” reiterates Hart one week after the reception. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so. Don’t invite me back. I don’t care.”
Switching gears, Hart describes the reception as “fantastic” and notes that the White House staff seemed “giddy.” ”A lot of work had to happen to make this reception politically viable and possible,” he observes.
That people possessed of such a single issue mindset would be unable to control themselves with the cameras rolling is so predictable that it makes me wonder whether the whole thing wasn’t staged intentionally. The reaction is equally predictable. If the comments here and here are any indication, anti-gay passions have been aroused, to say the least.
Might that have been the whole idea? Attempt to wed the gays to the Democrats by deliberately staging events intended to engender as much anti-gay sentiment on the right as possible?
Think about it. The people who run the White House might not be capable of fixing the economy, but they are certainly politically savvy enough to realize that when you invite certain people to certain places, certain things are certain to happen.
MORE: “The White House did not approve.”
And my thanks to Daily Pundit for the link.
The notion that the Obama people are political geniuses is a myth propagated by the fellating tools of the Obama media, by the way. Actually, these clowns – and the Head Clown himself – are, as BJ Clinton so inconveniently pointed out, “amateurs.”
Good point, and I never meant to imply that what happened was the work of geniuses.
Comments
8 responses to “So predictable that it seems intentional”
Can’t see it. I vote for plain old stupidity.
Don’t worry, no one worth listening to is holding you responsible for such deeply stupid behavior.
So, the Dems are running against a dead Boogieman, who left office, 25 yrs ago?
The Dem s “got nuthin” due to a bad economy, due to bad policy, and dare I say, sheer ineptitude.
So it’s pander to “hispanics”, pander to Wymen, pander to the gay folks, what a bunch of @##$%ing fools,
Bob
I expect a pander to the anti-prohibitionists around 21 October of this year. A few weeks before the election.
Since med pot is now legal in DC they would not be violating the law. And doing it in front of a picture of the “Just Say No” President would obviously be in order.
I believe they are preparing the ground.
With 56% ready to legalize pot what do they have to lose from giving it a shot?
[…] was discussing the latest pander to gays by the President. I made a prediction in the comments but I want to front page it so I can […]
[…] Classical Values » So predictable that it seems intentional That people possessed of such a single issue mindset would be unable to control themselves with the cameras rolling is so predictable that it makes me wonder whether the whole thing wasn’t staged intentionally. The reaction is equally predictable. If the comments here and here are any indication, anti-gay passions have been aroused, to say the least. […]
It was not intentional. I know the guy who wrote the article. He’s experience a huge backlash from the LGBT…GHB…ADHD…whatever… community right now for bringing this to light and providing material for right wing blogs. He stands accused of “homophobia” AND he’s catching crap from SoCons for “promoting” degeneracy. Poor guy practices actual journalism by doing, why I thought was, a very good job being fair and balanced and he can’t win. Or perhaps by pissing both sides off, he is winning? Who knows?
[…] Classical Values » So predictable that it seems intentional That people possessed of such a single issue mindset would be unable to control themselves with the cameras rolling is so predictable that it makes me wonder whether the whole thing wasn’t staged intentionally. The reaction is equally predictable. If the comments here and here are any indication, anti-gay passions have been aroused, to say the least. […]
I vote for ‘arrogant stupidity'(I mean, did they actually think doing this at the White House would escape all notice? Really?). Also, they ignore something about Reagan:
“Out of personal conviction that individuals should only be judged on their merits, Reagan campaigned against the initiative. He even went to so far as to pen on op-ed against it in the closing days of the campaign. The initiative was soundly defeated.
David Mixner, a leading gay rights advocate who organized opposition to the initiative was unequivocal in his credit to Reagan on the victory:”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/22/gay-activists-know-nothing-about-reagan-history
I’ll throw in it’s not necessarily ‘anti-gay’ passions; what I’ve mostly heard is ‘anti-childish, hateful, extremist assholes’ passions.