Posts Tagged ‘lesbian’

I was approving comments today and a fellow named Billy asked what I think is a very fair question:

If “Kagan has to stand or fall on her record,” why has every single one of your posts about her been related to her sexual orientation?

It’s a good point worth answering, particularly since I’ve claimed that it has non bearing on her qualifications for the court.

First Two people I like, Robert Stacy McCain and Cynthia Yockey wrote stories on the issue. I thought that Cynthia’s was particularly good and I found it a good reason to link to them. I must not be alone in that opinion since she has been invited on two radio shows since her PJ media piece.

Second: Frankly the Elena Kagan nomination story is… well boring. Very important mind you, will affect the country for decades but boring nonetheless. You have a liberal president with a 59-41 Senate nominating a supreme court nominee. Barring a revelation that she was working secretly for the Taliban there is a greater chance of this president naming me to replace her in the solicitor general’s office than there is of her being defeated. If the Senate was closer it might be different but with these numbers, until the hearing it is just a giant yawner.

Third: We have been told over and over again that republicans and conservatives are “homophobic” and the democratic party is the one place that is welcoming for gays, yet during the course of the year this administration has stuck their finger in the eyes of Gay groups on more than one occasion. Thus how the administration handles the first “Gay” nominee to the court is significant.

Fourth: The reactions themselves have been telling. The suggestion that she is a lesbian is being treated by Democrats and the administration as a slur. This totally contradicts the image the democrats have of themselves as Gay friendly. It is that phoniness that is the only interesting story at this point, at least until the hearing start, then you never know.

Finally: It gave me a chance to quote Andrew Sullivan. For reasons that will be clear in just under three weeks I wanted an excuse to link to and quote Sullivan. This story provided it.

I hope this is an adequate answer to your question.

Gay rights groups are apparently hitting the WSJ over the softball picture.

Pat Buchanan talked about what playing softball meant, I guess I AM a naif, I’ve never ever heard of Softball=lesbian. This is Massachusetts, Baseball and the Red Sox are practically the 8th sacrament.

Oh and Joe agrees with me, I like the batting stance.

I’m looking at the gay rights groups response over that photo, left and right, I say the various groups were waiting for a chance to be “out-raged”

On the left you hear it:

“Personally I think the newspaper, which happens to have the largest circulation of any in the U.S., might as well have gone with a headline that said, ‘Lesbian or switch-hitter?'” grumbled the Dallas Voice’s John Wright.

On the right they are using the photo to hit the administration

“I fully expect the White House to push back and claim Kagan never played softball and that it’s a smear to insinuate she did,” emailed a founder of the conservative gay group GOProud, Chris Barron.

The response of the WSJ was classic and Morning Joe read it:

“If you turn the photo upside down, reverse the pixilation and simultaneously listen to Abbey Road backwards, while reading Roland Barthes, you will indeed find a very subtle hidden message,” said Journal spokeswoman Ashley Huston.

I don’t know what the Journal pays Ashley but she deserves a bonus, that was awesome.

I still never heard a thing about the Softball stuff, I’ll have to take Pat’s word for it, but then again I didn’t see the Spongebob connection either until a gay friend told me either.

Of course there is this report from Dan Riehl

…but I’ve never heard playing softball being a sign of being a lesbian.

If that is the case then there are a bunch of lesbian leagues in Massachusetts that a bunch of guys are playing on.

But between the politico article and Sullivan’s latest I must conclude that this is all about making it a cause, suddenly we have to support her because those nasty conservatives are making hay of her orientation. That way the White House can be only reluctantly dragged into the conversation.

It would be a good plan, except for the fact that the American Media have lost the ability to con the American People that they once had. Kagan has to stand or fall on her record.

She will likely stand.

Update: I actually like the picture in question it is a good baseball stance and there is nothing more American than a person at the plate.

…I don’t know Elena Kagan personally, never met her, never really followed her. I don’t know if she is a lesbian or not and frankly don’t care. It seems to be an “open secret” but I’ve never really gone for “open secret” stuff. If she wants to declare her sexual preference that’s fine, if not that’s fine too. It’s not true one way or another until she says so and either way it’s not my business.

That being said what is really interesting watching Morning Joe this morning is the number of times the words “4th woman” (over and over) vs the number of times “1st lesbian” (never) is being said.

If this is something “everyone knows” the fact that the media won’t and hasn’t said it is very telling. The media has constantly bombarded us with the proposition that Homosexuality in all its forms should be embraced and even celebrated by society. Yet, if this is true, the historic nature of this nomination the “breakthrough” is not being touched. Not even being alluded to.

Why is this the case? In my opinion three reasons:

1. They are convinced that this will hurt them (the administration) in the elections this year. They are already in rough shape and don’t want to make things worse.

2. If it is discussed they want it to come from a conservative outlet so they can cry “bigotry”.

3. Demographics. If you look at Prop 8 the Black community is not on board with the whole Gay Marriage thing. This year there are an unprecedented amount of black conservatives running on the republican side. Cynthia is on the money here. If the black or Latino community move even slightly toward the R column the game will be over for Democrats for generations.

This I think speaks to the hypocrisy of the media more than anything else.

Of course maybe they think she is another Gregg Kravitz.

Presuming she is the nominee I will likely oppose her based on her judicial philosophy (yes I’m going to use the same standard the left uses for us) , however from what I can see there is no question that she is a qualified candidate and philosophy aside certainly can do the job. If she however wants to use foreign or international law as a precedent for ruling then we have a real problem here, but that problem if it exists wont be with who she is sleeping with.

Update: Interesting. I believe the true expression of media bias is not what the media says but what it doesn’t. Take a look at this Media Matters list of “Myths” about Elena Kagan and note what is not said.

Update 2: Legal Insurrection points out another irony.

Update 3: Camp of the saints calls my reasoning fine but doesn’t answer the real question. I know that in the photo at the bottom of his page I’m the guy on the left, which one of the remaining two are him and which is Robert Stacy?

Update 4 Andrew Sullivan and Hot Air address the question Stacy, Cynthia and I have been talking about this morning. Keep track of the relative times. Sullivan is going to be a very important reference at this blog in about 20 days.

Update: Little Miss Attila has the last and the funniest word on the subject:

I’d love to jump into the fray and demand that Elena Kagan disclose any feelings she might have about women as potential life partners, but I’m searching desperately for my gay agenda. I think I may have left it in the closet . . .

That’s a pretty good line.