Rainbow Elephant

New Blog

Having mulled things over for a while, I've now begun a new blog at


The new blog is going to discuss only gay issues.

Also, I've gone through my old posts here and unlocked several of them. The ones that are still locked are mostly going to be eventually incorporated into longer essays which will appear elsewhere. Most of the ones I've opened were topical things that it wouldn't make much sense to repost now, like the "Disassociated Press" pretend articles.

Hope to see you at my new blog.
I Prefer To Be Called A Lesbian American

The Problem With Us Gay Conservatives

EDIT: I'm leaving this post as I originally wrote it, but now I know that politics has eroded the conservatism of straight conservatives as much as it has of ours. So this isn't actually a problem with gay conservatives, it's a problem with conservatives, full stop. /EDIT

Is that whatever our principles might be on their own, politics erodes our conservatism.

Like most actual conservatives, I was not happy about the McCain nomination. I’m still baffled that this RINO finagled our nomination. But today I got this link in my Log Cabin Republicans email:

Log Cabin Endorses Sen. John McCain for President

Why? Because he (rightly) opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment. Never mind his unconservative stance on a number of issues, he’s willing to put up with us so we’ll support him.

It gets worse, though. Let me digress. I’ve always considered women’s ordination a fringe issue, but I finally read enough bad accounts of female clergy to conclude that it’s a bad idea. If I found out about even one female minister or rabbi who was theologically traditional and conservative I would change my mind, but they all seem to be more interested in political action than in religion, and none seem willing to defend ritual tradition. The Church of England has ordained many women and apparently all of them oppose the traditional liturgy and book of prayer, to the dismay of traditionalists in their faith. To make matters worse, I recently read about a female rabbi who took it upon herself to ordain women as Catholic priests. What is wrong with this is so blatantly obvious that I’m not even going to enumerate it.

Homocons are falling prey to the same temptation, it seems: “Our members also support him because he’s a maverick; a trait most recently on display with his decision to select Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.”

Why is being a “maverick” a trait to be selected for? We’re supposed to be Republicans because we are in favor of what the GOP stands for, not because we want to support the election of someone who opposes much of that.

As a homosexual and a conservative, I am not interested in becoming a fifth column.

(no subject)

For the record, I'm Jewish, but somehow have a sufficiently strong sense of self that my identity is not diminished by seeing evidence that a holiday of another religion is being celebrated. Sometimes when someone wishes me a Merry Christmas I reply with a cheerful "Happy Chanukah", but I hardly feel that they're forcing their religion on me. In fact, when people start whining about how seeing Christmas decorations and so on all over the place is forcing a religion they don't subscribe to on them, I feel inclined to tell them a bit about the history of my faith. We could tell you what having a religion forced on you is like.

This year the war on Christmas has a new wrinkle, namely, liberals denying that there is any war on Christmas. Sure, the people who are banning the pledge to the flag on the grounds that it has the word "God" in it and demanding that depictions of the Ten Commandments be taken off government buildings are willing to live and let live where this country's biggest religious holiday is concerned. Of course they are.

The websites of the people who are claiming that there are no WMDs and was never even a reason to think there were, and that socialism works, and that terrorism will go away if we just ignore it, are now assuring us that there is no war on Christmas. If you're wondering about the many news articles about schools being forced to remove Santa Claus from their displays, festivals being required to hide nativity scenes, courthouses being compelled to take down their Christmas trees, and numerous similar incidents, the deniers have a simple answer: they are all made up. Yep. Our news services are just making stuff up and lying to us. But we can trust them when they imply that Bush stole the election even after three recounts and a prolonged investigation found no evidence whatever, or when they talk as if global warming had been proved beyond all doubt.

I have never aspired to be an investigative reporter, so I didn't go calling school superintendents and courthouse clerks to find out if the lawsuits and rulings happened as reported by various news sites and papers. Instead, I just decided to check out one of the usual suspects, the ACLU.

I went to their website and almost immediately found an article called, "How the ACLU didn't steal Christmas." If you bother to read it you'll notice the article doesn't actually deny it. It merely says, "Of course, there is no 'Merry Christmas' lawsuit, nor is there any ACLU litigation about U.S. currency, military chaplains, etc." They go on, incredibly, to claim that they're more Christian than Christians because they stand up for the oppressed unfortunates Jesus helped.

Unfortunately for them, they have a search box on their website, and I typed "Christmas" into it.

And in 1982, the principal of Thomas Jefferson High School in Council Bluffs was told by a federal judge to stop leading students in prayer at school-sponsored Christmas and Easter services. The plaintiff in that suit, Milton Abramson, received death threats. Notice I'm not hiding my own side's misdeeds by excluding that last sentence. The article was very unclear, perhaps deliberately, but I dug around and the ACLU was supporting the judge.

The ACLU said in legal papers that the Sycamore School District violated its own religion-neutral policy on school closings and has not attempted to close schools on other days such as Take Your Daughter To Work Day, which has had practically the same absentee rate as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

"Public schools may close on religious holidays only if they have a religion-neutral reason for doing so,"said Gino Scarselli, Associate Legal Director for the ACLU of Ohio. "However, the overwhelming evidence in this particular case makes it clear that the district's motivation is to unconstitutionally benefit religion."
Why anyone should give a hang about Gino Scarselli's decrees was unclear. Was he crowned Emperor and nobody told me?

In its complaint, the ACLU seeks a permanent court injunction to block any religious holidays from being observed as special off days. Christmas traditionally has been incorporated into the winter vacation period at Sycamore, as at nearly all U.S. public schools.
No, it hasn't been "incorporated", it is the specific reason that the "winter vacation", which for decades has been called the "Christmas vacation", has existed in the first place.

"Flemington's ordinance is written so broadly that Christmas carolers, trick-or-treaters, people tossing a Frisbee in the park, or even two kids skateboarding together would have to obtain permission from the government to do so," said Fernando M. Pinguelo of Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. in Bridgewater, who, along with Richard A. Norris and Jignesh J. Shah, are the ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorneys representing Flisser. I had to really hunt to find out what this case about someone who held an event after being denied the parade license he needed was really about. The ACLU doesn't want you to know that they're defending peace protesters, which is what he was. I have a lot of trouble believing that there is anywhere in this country where there are any limits whatsoever on the activities of pro-terrorist peace protesters, but if there are, I'm going to move there. The article is very brief and considering that on that page they don't admit what he was really up to, call me cynical but I think there's more they're not telling us.

The site brags that they support Christian churches in some free speech cases. Well, here's an example: One of the controversial ads, paid for by The Church of the Good News, said that early Christians did not celebrate Christmas or "believe in lies about Santa Claus, flying reindeer, elves and drunken parties." A second ad, which was rejected by the transit authority and never posted, said, "There is only one true religion. All the rest are false." So they'll defend Christians who are 1) helping their war against Christmas and 2) posting ads so obnoxious that they will do the Christian faith more harm than good.

The mayor's effort "to legitimize these religious displays by declaring the lawn a 'limited public forum' that exists only during the time of these Jewish and Christian religious holidays is pretextual and legally inadequate. The front lawn of City Hall is not available as a public forum at any time other than Chanukah, the winter holiday of the Jewish religion, and Christmas, the Christian holiday that celebrates the birth of the Christian savior."

The fact that the Left is lying to us about their war on Christmas might be even more sinister (the Latin word for "left") than the war itself. We know why they're opposing Christmas; it has to do with Christianity, material possessions, personal generosity as opposed to governmentally enforced generosity, non-macrobiotic trans-fat-laden foods, and unapologetically sentimental movies with no sex, violence, or postmodern cynicism. No wonder twenty years ago Bloom County ran a cartoon saying, "Christmas is so Republican."

In closing, apparently an athiest snorklewhaker in California didn't get the memo about there being no war on Christmas. In order to protest the local school district's referring to Christmas and Easter vacation as Christmas and Easter vacation, he set fire to a Christmas tree, an American flag, and himself. I expect he's a great admirer of Darwin, and now he's going for the Darwin award.

We're Red

The Problem With A Two-Party System.

I keep pointing out to my fellow homosexuals that voting Democrat gets us nowhere, not even on specifically gay issues. They promise us the moon while they're campaigning and never bother to deliver, such as when Bill Clinton welched on his promise to allow gays in the military and signed DOMA. They don't bother because they take us for granted; they're sure we and other "minorities" will keep voting for them regardless out of terror of our dire fate should those mean old Republicans get elected.

Unfortunately, Republican politicians, being human and subject to all the attendant failings, are doing the same thing. They know those of us who value free markets, a strong defense, and family values have nowhere else to go. A Democrat in public office is a disaster for us. This means that Republican candidates can count on us even if their performance is decidedly lackluster. A Republican in office doesn't have to really deliver because the voters who put him there would set fire to our own hair before voting Democrat, the former being a less self-destructive act.

I hereby notify the GOP that the natives are restless. Every Republican I know wants to know why, after 12 years of controlling congress and 6 in the White House, we still have no-fault divorce, the ROTC being banned from federally funded schools and universities, the NEA, and criminal justice policies that have made our streets perilous since the 60's. And that's just for starters.

I'm not going to abandon the GOP. But as free marketeers, we Republicans know what happens when there's no competition. I'm starting to wonder if a party system where every election is between good and evil is such a great idea. A few years ago a local Libertarian radio host interviewed me on her show and her first question was, "Why aren't more Log Cabin Republicans Libertarians?" Before getting into the theoretical differences, I blurted, "Well, for one thing, Libertarians never get elected." It would be very nice if Libertarians were a strong enough force in politics that I had a choice between good people who agree with me about 95% of stuff and good people who agree with me about 80% of stuff. It would be nice if every Republican defeat weren't an unqualified disaster.
Bash This!

A voice of sanity

From the latest issue of Southern Voice, Atlanta's gay newsweekly:

I hope the Dems take Congress. Not because I expect anything to change, only so we can settle once and for all the myth that they are our friends. All we will get will be promises and then reasons why they couldn't keep them. It will be Bill Clinton, Part Deux.
Rainbow Elephant

(no subject)

It's possible, as a few conservative bloggers have already pointed out, that yesterday's losses will be good for us in the long run. Maybe they'll make Republican politicians realize they need to shape up or ship out.

Let me clarify. I tend to feel impatient with those Americans who turn up their noses and say, "I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative," as if this were a useful distinction. Especially since they tend to follow this up with childish condemnations of the GOP. One conservative blogger I knew via the Internet decided a year ago that he wasn't going to affiliate himself with any party anymore. In the discussion of this I tried to explain why party affiliation and voting a straight party ticket is useful; for one thing, voting that way demonstrates loyalty to a particular style of government, rather than appreciation of some individual candidate's charisma or something. Party membership also allows you to vote in primaries, giving you say in who runs in addition to who's elected. Besides which, the GOP has managed to make achievements that I by my lonesome certainly couldn't have. He ignored all the discussions, however, and proceeded to start making snide remarks about how happy he was to be free of the "two-party plantation". Basically, I think he was just too immature to deal with the fact that not all Republicans are perfect or agree with him 100%.

This is a reaction many Democrats expect right-leaning gays to have. Straight Democrats frequently come to me with the horrifying revelation that - gasp! - some Republican who was running for the city council in a state I don't live in stated that he disapproved of homosexuality. Apparently I am supposed to respond by putting national security, the economy, and my civil liberties in the hands of Democrats, who have thoroughly proven that their handling of these things will be nothing short of disastrous. Well, as a Log Cabin Republican, here's my message to the government: I don't need you to love me, just prevent terrorists from blowing me up.

On a similar note, last year I came across some websites and blogs owned by people calling themselves "paleoconservatives". It caught my interest, because I've always been baffled as to what a "neoconservative" is, since apparently I am one; I've never seen two definitions that weren't mutually exclusive. I started reading their essays, and quickly figured out what a paleocon is: it's someone who spends all their time sitting around sneering that those "conservatives" who have managed to actually publish bestsellers or get elected are not real conservatives. The sour-grapes vibe was overwhelming.

These are not clubs I'm interested in joining. I'm not going to abandon the GOP in a huff because it hasn't turned America into 1950 only without segregation or the risk of being arrested for going to a gay bar. (Before Stonewall, that was a very real risk. You didn't have to be doing anything, you just had to be there to go to jail.) I expect that many Republican politicians are doing their best, and I know that most Republican authors are.

But dammit, we've controlled Congress for twelve years, and had a Republican president, and things haven't improved that much. There's been a dip in the crime rate, the economy's healthier despite the Roosevelt-inflicted burdens we're still carrying, and we have, thank God, gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and put a bloodthirsty dictator out of business (12 years after we could and should have), and prevented further terrorist attacks on America. We haven't run this war the way we should have, but there's no way I'll blame Dubya for that; Americans have become far too corrupt to properly fight a war. Watch any movie made in the 1940s - any movie, including musicals where the central conflict is the protagonist's attempt to get a tap-dancing job - and you'll see what I mean.

But we still have no-fault divorce. We still have a grade-school system so worthless that for most decent jobs, one has to spend years of adulthood and tens of thousands of dollars getting a college degree which is almost as worthless as that diploma. We still have judicial activism. We still have a drug problem and no end in sight. We still have the Miranda rights law. So what has electing all those Republicans really gotten us? Okay, only two of our skyscrapers were reduced to flaming rubble. That's important and I won't ignore it. But really, considering how industriously Democrats wreaked havoc every chance they've had since 1960, surely we could have been equally industrious in repairing their disasters. Have we lost our balls? I think we have. Looking at the billboards and the newspapers and the TV shows, I always feel like hardly anyone else wants America to be a decent country again. Maybe our elected officials feel the same way. Maybe they're scared to make big enough changes to really improve things and are contenting themselves with those issues which are immediately life-threatening, like terrorism, or too abstract for most people to understand, like economic measures.

No, I won't abandon the GOP. They're still my best bet of seeing America become America again during my lifetime. But dammit, I'm frustrated. It seems to me we haven't gotten an adequate return on our investment.

Excerpt From The DNC Propaganda Manual

***Warning: This post contains speculation, political commentary, and most dangerously, humor. Handle at your own risk.***

There are some votes that Democrats can always count on. Evil people, for example, will always vote for us because they understand that we have the same goals as they do: poverty, dictatorship, and mass murder. You will recall that during the Cold War the Soviet Union routinely contributed to Democratic presidential campaigns, and after the USSR's tragic collapse, the heroic freedom fighter Osama Bin Laden was kind enough to endorse John Kerry. The congenitally stupid will also usually vote for us, brainwashed as they have been by the massive efforts of the New York Times, CNN and nearly all America's schoolteachers. The Republicans will always have to hand the "immature narcissist" vote to us, thanks to our years of effort catering to their egos; the few immature narcissists who have any toehold on reality will vote Libertarian, much to the embarrassment of actual Libertarians. Also in our pocket are the self-hating homosexuals and many of the adherents of "New Age" religions, both of whom feel guilty about their pursuits. For as long as they believe they are doing something wrong, they will vote for the party which assures them that morality is an illusion.

Another vote, however, is trickier, and that is the vote of someone who has made a study of propaganda and Machiavellian strategy. How can we induce such a person to fall for his own tricks?

Fortunately, we have an excellent case study in the case of Robert Greene, author of The 48 Laws of Power. Despite having written three thick volumes about underhanded tricks, all of which display a brilliant grasp of human nature and of devious strategy, Greene's blog includes an essay called How to crush Karl Rove and the Republicans in Five Easy Steps. For those who have not read Greene's books, the essay reads like the usual ramblings of a dilletante who acquires all of his information by occasionally tuning in to Bill Moyers and never bothers to do enough research to learn the actual facts. For those who have, the deception of such a first-rate mind and thorough researcher is an unparalleled achievement we would do well to study.

Of course all of you know well the principle of the Big Lie, which Greene is practicing by repeating several of our key Lies without supporting them. Early in the essay he remarks, "The idea is that the Republicans are doing such a bad job right now with the war and with the economy, it is better to let them self-destruct." Had he checked his facts concerning the economy and the war, he would not have been able to say this, assuming he is indeed repeating the Big Lie and not deliberately lying himself. Which leads to the question, how can someone so insightful be so gullible? Ten minutes of research on the Internet could have brought the truth to his attention.

His essay continues, "To turn this state of affairs around, two things are required: first, the crafting of an overall vision, of something strong and definitive that can separate them in form and content from the Republicans; second, a thorough understanding of the Rovian electoral strategies and how to do combat them."

Of course, Democrats do have a strong, definitive, overall vision. The reason red-staters don't vote Democrat is that they know precisely what that vision is. He then suggests ways that we could make our vision more palatable; for instance, that we could claim that instead of sending soldiers into the Middle East, we would put the money and manpower into intelligence and diplomacy. Is it possible that Greene is unaware of the decades of intelligence and diplomacy America put into the Middle East, to no avail? If so, our stranglehold on the media, while loosened grievously by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch, is still effective.

Greene asks, "Will the Democrats be the party of Hollywood, of New York, of Talk America, and progressive ghettos throughout the country, thereby ensuring permanent minority status? Or will it return to the vision of FDR, to a party that the average American could and wanted to identify with?" Here, again, he is relying on his readers being unaware that FDR's policies were disastrous to America's economy and that it is still suffering from them today.

Best of all, Greene proposes, "The case is made to the public, in strong terms, that the military is the worst option with terrorism. The Democrats will put their resources into intelligence, into infiltration, into breaking up their money and lines of communication, and with politics and diplomacy, effectively isolating the enemy."

This is very encouraging. Greene clearly has no idea what would be involved in his plan. Infiltration, for example, is nigh-impossible. To get into an al-Queda type terrorist organization, you have to spend years proving you're their kind of bloke. This involves such things as committing numerous vicious murders and tortures on innocent people. While most Democrats have few compunctions about murder or human suffering, most of us are also squeamish and prefer not to be directly confronted with the sight of it. In addition, his remark about "isolating the enemy" implies that he thinks the nations of Europe, most of which eagerly surrendered to the Nazis and slyly cooperated with the Soviet Union, and almost all of which is now cheerfully accepting kickbacks from Middle Eastern dictators and embracing dhimmitude, are going to ally themselves with America when there are murderous dictatorships available.

The fact is that even clever strategians like Robert Greene are not immune to the very strategies they chronicle, though they require a special, two-pronged approach.

First, intelligent people are generally very conceited about their own intellect, and it is this which we must flatter. They become so accustomed to analyzing events like a chess game that they come to think entirely too highly of their own cleverness. This conceit causes them to miss things. This is why the liberal media is constantly harping on the "strategy" and "spin" of Republicans. No matter how self-evident a statement made by a Republican may be, the MSM rushes to make the accusation of propaganda. Since the culmination of President Clinton's years of diplomacy on September 11, 2001, most Americans are aware that terrorism is a real threat to them. Nonetheless, whenever any Republican states, "There are terrorists out there who want to kill Americans," you will notice that thousands of left-wing columnists and editors will accuse that Republican of "playing on our fears". Say this enough times and people will be distracted from the detail that the Republican in question was simply stating a fact which everyone already knew. Most people are too weak to face unpleasant facts of reality and would prefer to have us assure them that the terrorist threat doesn't exist. Left-wing columnists support these assertions with convoluted explanations of why something that looks good - i.e. the economy right now - is actually bad, or vice versa. The more convoluted and counterintuitive the better, because following the twists and turns of these creative explanations makes people feel clever.

Our approach, in short, makes people feel clever. Republicans acknowledge that when dealing with the seriously evil - fascists, communists, Islamic terrorists - talking nice, playing chess with treaties and sanctions and stuff, gathering intelligence in various sneaky indirect ways, generally isn't going to do the trick. Only marching in with large guns is. What's clever about that? Strategians such as Greene want to sit around feeling smart as they weave elaborate plans about diplomacy and whatnot, even as the other guys are tossing grenades into their laps. Conservative acknowledgement that some problems can only be solved by punching someone in the nose comes to seem naive to them, infatuated as they are with their byzantine manipulations.

Which brings us to the second prong of our strategy with strategians: their preoccupation with strategic thinking really does blind them. They read so much Machiavellian philosophy and evolutionary psychology that they begin to assume that human behavior is totally determined by these Darwinian urges and by clever strategians (like themselves!). They forget that they are not really dealing with a chess game where the only question is whether the black or white pieces get into the power spots. They see so many bad people painting themselves as good that they lose sight of the fact that good and evil really do exist, they're not just garments to put yourself and your opponent in for propaganda purposes. Look at the world with this attitude long enough and people, like Republicans, who acknowledge the existence of good and evil seem downright naive.

Rainbow Elephant

Pretty in Pink

Martha Burk, chairperson of the National Council of Women's Organisations and the leader of the fight to force Augusta National Golf Club or something to admit women (she has now become so "disgusted" that she refuses to play golf anymore), has declared jihad against the color pink. "It's retro in the worst sense of the word. We are back in the 50's. Soon we are going to see puffy petticoats and crinoline skirts." Well, I can hope.

The New York Times asked her, "Do you find the president helpful to women?"

She replied, "During the campaign, there was a lot of 'W. is for women,' but he talked about nothing besides liberating the women of Afghanistan and Iraq." While right here at home, women were draping themselves in pink. The outrage.


New attitudes color Iranian society, culture

By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY

TEHRAN, Iran — In a city that only a few years ago was almost monochromatic — full of women draped head to toe in black — women and girls this winter are sporting pink coats, pink sweaters, pink head scarves, shoes and bags....

Iran's "pink revolution" is a silent fashion statement that sends a powerful message. Unable to act overtly against the rigid Islamism that has shaped Iranian political and cultural life since the U.S.-backed shah was overthrown in 1979, many Iranians express their contempt for the government through their clothing.


Ms. Burk might be interested to know that a generation ago, Southerners refused to drink pink lemonade. Why? Because it had "communist overtones". Somehow I bet that's not a message she wants to be associated with.

Also, while I was looking up her quotations, I kept coming across feminist organizations that use the word "pink" in their names or use the color as a "Female Power" symbol; for instance, feminists demonstrated wearing bright pink T-shirts.

I also came across Martha Burk's website. Guess what the color scheme is? Lavender and... dark pink.

Also take a look at the cover of her book:

What would you call that, teal? Taupe? Ecru?

Betty and Veronica

An Open Letter To The Supporters of DOMA

I’m a gay American who considers marriage a very important institution. I’m very glad that someone considers it worth defending. What I want to know is, where were you when marriage was in real jeopardy?

Until the 1960s, divorce was difficult to get. America was considered quite liberal for most of its history because divorce was possible at all. For a marriage to be dissolved, there had to be serious cause, usually either physical abuse or adultery. (The fact that fidelity was considered of such importance seems downright quaint today.) Evidence ofthis, or at least testimony, had to be produced in court. The “easy way” was to go to Nevada, and one was required to live there for six weeks to establish residency before one could get a Nevada divorce. (Today there are places in Nevada where one can get a drive-through marriage or divorce. Literally.)

It was a slow and difficult process, ending a marriage, and it meant that only couples who really were miserable together would even attempt it.

Why was this so difficult? Because it was believed that marriage was important, that it was a serious commitment. It was considered proper that it should last a lifetime. “Till death do us part” was actually - imagine this - taken literally. It was believed that children deserved to know their parents would both be there forever, and that adult deserved to know that they would have a companion in their old age who had been with them through thick and thin.

Then came the “no-fault divorce”. It is now accepted in all fifty states. It means that anyone can legally end their marriage for any reason whatsoever. There are still long - and nasty - court battles in some cases, but these are over property settlements and child custody, not over the marriage itself.

I’m not sure what the architects of this disaster thought they were accomplishing. Perhaps they were feminists who envisioned oppressed women escaping the shackles of stifling marriages and venturing forth into the world for fulfilling careers.

What they actually got was: a soaring divorce rate - roughly 50%; steadily rising numbers of single-parent families; millions of children deeply wounded at the breakup of their homes; the addition of the term “deadbeat dad” to our language; hundreds of thousands of men abruptly deprived of their children, their homes, and a large part of their incomes; numerous exciting new venereal diseases; men casting aside the wives who worked to put them through law or medical school for younger, prettier new ones; and millions of lonely, depressed adults who know that even if they find someone, that someone could easily vanish next month.

The fact is, a marriage can be dissolved today by filling out a few forms and filing them at the county courthouse. A marriage - what was once the most sacred and serious commitment of our society - is now hardly worth the paper of its certificate.

As a Lesbian, I want same-sex marriage recognized by my government, but even if it is, what good will that do me when my wife could simply fill out a form and desert me? When I choose my life partner, I intend to forsake all others for her and remain with her for the rest of my life.

The fact is, I’m much more conservative about marriage than most heterosexuals.

What I want to know is, where were these heterosexuals who are so zealous to “defend marriage” when it was dealt the staggering blow of the no-fault divorce?
Rainbow Liberty

The Democrat Procedure For Converting Republicans

I have never seen this publication, you understand, I am merely reverse engineering it from the efforts of Democrats I have met.


1. Don't confuse the issue with facts. Facts bore people. All they want is an appeal to the emotions.

2. Logic doesn't sway people, lung power does. If, for example, you make a statement about a sacred subject such as environmentalism and one of those infidels dares to mention studies that disprove your statement or point out the flaws in your logic, scream as loud as you can: "IT'S TRUE, IT'S TRUE, THE DETAILS DON'T MATTER, IT'S TRUE!" Who could fail to be convinced by such passion?

3. Name-calling is an effective persuasive strategy. No one wants to be called an idiot or a Nazi, nor do they want to be associated with someone who is called that. So all you have to do is tell a Republican, "Bush=Hitler!" or "Only an idiot would vote Republican!" They will be so petrified at the prospect of being called bad names again that they will vote Democrat for the rest of their lives.

4. You don't have to be a Jedi to use Jedi mind tricks. For example, as the aunt of one particularly stubborn Republican has done, you can lay the foundation by making a lot of utterly idiotic statements, about both politics and other subjects, including recent movies, works of literature, the weather, etc. Having carefully concealed any glimmering of intelligence you might have, you then assert, "Rush Limbaugh is such an idiot." The listener will then become convinced that Rush Limbaugh, not you, made the moronic statements you have recited and will stop listening to Rush.

5. If your quarry is black, Hispanic, Jewish, gay or otherwise a "minority", condescend to them. They like it. These people are too stupid and backward to understand what's best for them, so when you assure them that you will take care of everything for them, they will feel safe and do what you tell them to. If they have been voting Republican, be sure to tell them how used and betrayed they have been; who doesn't want to be a victim?

6. The one who shows the most hysterics wins. What kind of stick-in-the-mud wants logic, facts or mature behavior? When you make a convincing display of your emotional agitation, people will be impressed and conclude that if you care that much about something, you must be right. Bonus points if you can emit visible flecks of spittle.

7. Pretend you can agree to disagree with Republicans and still be friends, then bring up politics constantly without warning, in as heavy-handed a fashion as you can. They'll be grateful that you care enough about them to browbeat them into leaving the Dark Side.

8. Point out a failing or misdeed of one individual Republican. Since one naturally expects Republicans to be perfect, a single flaw in a single Republican will lead your quarry to abandon his principles and his party on the spot and vote Democrat for all eternity.

From carbonelle:
9. Assure them you know what "real" Republicans believe. Because you know better than they do what conservatives think, and the principles (hah!) that they pretend underly their beliefs. Then you can show them how obviously being a Democrat is more in tune with these "principles"--!

From some_day_soling:
10. When there are two of you with a Republican be sure and talk about politics in front of said Republican without engaging said Republican. This will convince them that all people agree with your point of view and they are the only outsider. This is sure to get them to change their ways and vote for Democrats. Note: It is very important to speak slowly and enunciate the important words, and remember: do not engage.