Oh my — yet another sordid, steamy political scandal is sending the blogosphere off the deep end. The latest? A conservative Marine reservist who received a presitigious award at last weekend’s CPAC:
I never imagined that I could become a “public figure” without facing scrutiny. And I sought attention. I’m the first to admit that I want to be heard, read and taken seriously. But some issues are complex, and some really are simple. People complain of a lack of depth in public discourse and the way complicated debates get compressed into meaningless sound bites. Well, porn is just … porn. Self-explanatory and without depth. The pictures do the talking, and however many pictures there may be in video stores or warehouses or online, they still don’t have anything interesting to say. I am concerned, though, that they may make some people feel inadequate. As a conservative, I like to insist on equal opportunity, even if some do start off with more than others.
C’mon — admit it. That’s funny.
Being female, of course, I’m not affected by feelings of comparative inadequacy, Freudian theories notwithstanding. However, it’s often said that the best defense is a good offense, and Cpl. Matt Sanchez is clearly on the defensive — with (imho) good reason: his past has come back to haunt him. Like many, many people lately, he’s discovered that old red meat is apparently edible forever.
He’s being blasted online as a hypocritical sycophant suffering from self-loathing — with an accompanying level of vulgarity (language warning) that churns Polimom’s sensitive stomach.
The volume and heat are so high, in fact, that it’s hard to tell whether people are more upset that he was in porn, or that he is gay…. or maybe was sort of gay, except he says not, or perhaps isn’t….
Since I’ve seen nothing to indicate Sanchez is still in the “adult entertainment” industry — or has been for many years — I find myself both bemused and disgusted by the reactions from both sides of the aisle.
Some conservatives (like this one) seem to feel that Sanchez’s past should have been more carefully scrutinized before handing out such a prominent award. Evidently, if one’s life was not lived by the Wholesome Family Values Creed, one should not be permitted to rise above that. We’ll let you work for our side (the thinking seems to be), but you’ll always be just a bit dirty.
Even those conservatives who are not inclined toward judgmentalism, though, can see that CPAC, and the conservative movement, has fairly earned the label “hypocrites”. It’s obvious that social conservatives have branded them homophobic…. and it’s their own fault. That’s what pandering gets you.
It’s the liberal reactions, though, that are the most telling — and damning — because for many on the left, this has clealy become a one-issue kinda’ world.
If you’re gay, you must support the left… because you are your sexual identity. You cannot — are simply not permitted to — find value in the traditional conservative positions that pre-date the party’s social hijacking. A gay person is his or her sexual orientation, and everything else has to take a backseat. It’s just too bad if the rest of the liberal agenda isn’t agreeable. If you’re gay, there’s only supposed to be one issue.
Period.
Just ask Mary Cheney.
It’s not the only issue, and a cursory reading of thoughtful gay bloggers would tell you that. We care about other things like education to the point of devoting our careers to them. But as long as we’re deprived of certain rights, it would be foolish to think that it’s not high on the list. Rights are binary; you either have them or you don’t, and if you arbitrarily deny someone of one right, then you might as well deny them of all of them.
By the way, check your spelling: it’s “Mary Cheney.” 🙂
MB —
Jesum. As often as that name is in our faces, you’d think it’d have jumped off the page at me. Thanks (fixed).
Re: other issues. Yes, there are other issues, and thoughtful bloggers on all sides of the aisle write about them. The insistence that gay Republicans must be attacked and exposed, though, has been consistent, and vicious.
Personally, I see value in aspects of both liberal and conservative ideologies, and I also think a person is perfectly capable of assigning weight to issues based on more criteria than one, and then affiliating accordingly. For some folks, this is the only issue. Fine. For others, it’s one of several crucial points. Again, fine.
But it’s political bullying to insist that others weigh issues based on one’s own criteria.
To me, the entire brouhaha reminds me of nothing so much as last fall’s orchestrated “outing” campaign. It struck me badly then (and here), and it does so now, too.
“A gay person is his or her sexual orientation, and everything else has to take a backseat. It’s just too bad if the rest of the liberal agenda isn’t agreeable. If you’re gay, there’s only supposed to be one issue.”
Gosh, and a lot of African-Americans sure spent a lot of time obsessing about one issue back in the civil rights era. How foolish of them!
When one party is devoted to destroying your life, it’s not so much that you have to support the opposition party, it’s that you’re stupid not to.
This issue I think is a good recent example of how when you only have two significant parties, then you are going to have conflicts of interest. I’m sure that anyone who is serious enough about their beliefs could find some issue or group that is associated with their party and say that they would prefer that wasn’t.
Everyone who can claim to be in a particular party or on a particular side, can do so because there is some issue that means a lot to them and the other party does not satisfy that interest. For some people, that’s going to be something such as abortion. They have identified a party as taking an issue they feel very close to agreeing with, and if the other party is nothing close to it, then it doesn’t matter much what else their own party stands for, they’re not going to move.
I’m sure those legendary and radicalized right wing Christian conservatives that are spoken of so often sometimes find it hard to understand why Catholics tend to be aligned with the democrats. But many right wing people at least have the respect to not call those on the left stupid for something they believe in.
“But many right wing people at least have the respect to not call those on the left stupid for something they believe in.”
It’s hard to fit “stupid” in between declarations that the left supports the terrorists and hates America. Except, of course, for the thousands of times that many on the right call liberals stupid.
Linking to my blog by saying “A gay person is his or her sexual orientation, and everything else has to take a backseat.” is NOT being honest. I said nothing of the sort; nothing that even resembles that.
I took issue to the fact that Mr. Sanzchez compares liberalism to the porn industry. Had you read my post, you may have noticed that. I don’t care about his sexual identity; however, I DO wonder what his stand on gay rights is. That is a legitimate question. And, Mr. Sanchez comparing someone Googling him to find out about his past to the government’s illegal wiretaps is laughable. I don’t care if Mr. Sanchez is gay, straight or bisexual. If he’s going to talk out of his ass, it’s fair game to call him on it.
Next time you want to link to my blog because you think you disagree with something I said, I would ask that you are actually sure of the content before you misrepresent my words to your readers.
Mixter
You’re right. I shouldn’t have said “right wing.” That was partisan of me. I should have said just “most people”. Not bloggers, but people. Most people do not accuse someone who disagrees with them of being stupid for their political beliefs and affiliations. They may call someone stupid for their actions, but not for what they believe in.
I don’t doubt that the left has been unfairly accused or associated with various conspiracies, events, and actions. But to not allow for people to prioritize their own personal interests and to find a political party that best fits those interests does not show any respect for those people as individuals.
Mixter,
Your post ranted so hard, it’s true that the line blurred for me. I apologize for implying that you’d focused solely on his sexual orientation. It wasn’t until much later that you went “there”:
You’re correct to point out that your focus was on the porn industry aspects. However, judging from the above quote, it’s disingenuous to state that you don’t care what his sexual orientation is.
“You’re right. I shouldn’t have said “right wing.” That was partisan of me. I should have said just “most people”. ”
Now this is quite correct. There is no shortage of bomb throwers on either side. The remainder of your post made a very good point about the two party system.
Ranted so hard? Puh-leeze…
The reason I went “there” is because he accused the left of “trivializing the taboo and magnifying the trivial.” Then he turns around and trivializes illegal wiretapping. And trivializes Barack Obama’s run for President. And trivializes the fact that Ann Coulter throws words like “faggot” around. And trivializes homosexuality:
Mr. Sanchez was QUOTED as saying he’s “pretty bad at being gay.” (If that is true, he must have sucked (no pun intended) in those movies.) I reiterate, asking about his position on gay rights — as he is a public figure with other stated political beliefs — is a legitimate question. I think it would be unusual for someone to be homosexual and not care about gay rights; but, it could happen. It’s a bit of a puzzle that someone who professes not to be homosexual would act in gay porn movies; but, it could happen. I don’t care who he has sex with, as I won’t be watching.
To accuse me of being disingenuous by your misreading of one quote would almost be insulting, if I actually gave a rip; it’s obvious you won’t be a regular reader of mine, so no big whoop.
Mixter
“If that is true, he must have sucked (no pun intended) in those movies.”
To the contrary, if he really wasn’t gay, then he was doing an extraordinarily GOOD job of acting in those gay porn movies. And many men believe that as long as you don’t “suck” you aren’t really gay.
Gosh, Polimom – I didn’t know that we were in the full moon(bat) part of the cycle.
BTW, the “link” in your first comment is just a piece of colored bytes (need a real link pse.)
~EdT.
Â
Fixed, and added another from that dust-up. -PolimomÂ