What’s wrong with this picture?

Suddenly the GOP loves gays?

I thought it was weird enough when Ann Coulter became Judy Garland. But I don’t really know anything about Ann Coulter, so maybe that sort of thing is normal for her. Still, it seems a bunch of right wingers think this is a voting bloc up for grabs.

Huh. I would have given gays more credit. But I guess when you still believe in the “system,” you take your allies where you find them. Personally I don’t understand why gay political activists think this will help them long-term. But then there are a lot of things I don’t understand.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to What’s wrong with this picture?

  1. It’s one of those the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    Seems when your stuck between one progressive group that applauds all that Mohammad demands of the treatment of gays ( and women) as a mere cultural difference that requires our respect and those that would (so far) professes to stop that nonsense in it’s tracks you might have a change of heart about those “wacky right wing knuckle draggers” R’s.

    I could be wrong…..

  2. GunRights4US says:

    Hmmmm, that’s queer.

  3. Matt says:

    Politics does make for strange bedfellows…

    I’ve never quite understood why gays are are automatically considered liberal. If you don’t see homosexuality as a political issue then they fit in both parties. Many consider themselves conservative because of fiscal policy, 2nd amendments rights, etc. Often they only differ with the mainstreem is in being gay.

    Then, maybe they are smart enough to undestand that either party is the opposite side of the same coin and figure they come out the best if they have a presence in both parties.

  4. suek says:

    Well…I don’t really think it has anything to do with gays actually…it’s Anne. She finds unique ways to be insulting. I’ve enjoyed some of her books, and although sometimes the humor takes a paragraph or two before it actually sinks in and you think “_WHAT???_”, after a bit it’s distracting and tiresome. I generally agree with what she says, but I don’t always enjoy _how_ she says it.

    This one, though, is just a way to slam Liberals as wimps. We generally consider gays to be wimps (Greeks aside, of course), so her thing is that our wimps are stronger and more macho than their heterosexuals – who are theoretically supposed to be at least a little bit macho…after all…that _is_ sort of the definition of “macho”…

    Would gays be insulted by being considered “macho” … or not “macho”? I really have no idea…

To the stake with the heretic!