Christofascists: Feminists Are Family-Destroying Whores; Minorities Are Leaving "Normal Marriage"

Even as the GOP potentates are struggling to find a improved message and "Moses like messenger," the Christofacists elements of the GOP base are hard at work ramping up their efforts to alienate women and minorities.  How else to explain two batshitery eruptions from the far right.  As Right Wing Watch reports, Christian radio hosts Pastor Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner went on a rant describing feminists as ugly, narcissistic, family-destroying whores who refuse to submit to a man. And then we have Joseph Goebbels look alike, Gary Bauer (pictured above) attacking minorities for their growing acceptance of same sex marriage.  The dripping hate and venom that these "godly Christians" and good Republicans is more than enough o send sane voters running away screaming.  First, here are highlights from Right Wing Watch:

Christian conservative radio hosts Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner are not exactly big fans of feminism in any of its forms. So far this month, they have opined that a woman fired for being too attractive shouldn’t have been working for a man who wasn’t her husband in the first place; that “socialist” single women are taking over America; and that Sandra Fluke isn’t “ladylike” enough to be considered for Woman of the Year.

There are “two forms of feminism,” Buehner argued. There are “cute” feminists like Sarah Palin who will find jobs in the “marketplace” and “get themselves a husband” but will “never submit to the husband, in fact they will use their power probably to make their husband submit to them.” Then, there are the “ugly” feminists whose “lack of attractiveness has not given them access to power that they wanted in the marketplace.” These “attractively challenged” feminists will only find careers in academia and in government agencies, for instance, “you can run the EPA.”

What all these feminists have in common, Swanson argues, is that “all of them want to be free from the family” and together with “the homosexuals” are “destroying society.” Buehner speculates that in the future, feminism will be remembered as “a time in which women lost the love of their children” and “decided to become selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores.”

Truly, this batshitery is NOT a winning message for attracting women voters, yet people as insane as these crackpots drafted the GOP 2012 party platform.  But women are not the only targets of far right venom.  As The Advocate reports, failed GOP presidential candidate and Family Research Council founder Gary Bauer has been ranting against minorities and accusing them of abandoning "normal marriage."  Here are highlights:  

Immediately after Republicans failed to take the White House or the Senate and lost seats in the House, religious right mouthpiece Gary Bauer claimed in interviews that the party just wasn't antigay enough to win.

But now he seems to be revising his post-election analysis ever so slightly.  .  .  .  . now ThinkProgress points out that Bauer claims President Obama has so drastically reshaped the political landscape with his own support for marriage equality that it might not be a winning issue.

"The coalition in favor of normal marriage has been made up of political conservatives and American minority groups, including Hispanics and blacks," Bauer told LifeSiteNews. "But the president’s so-called ‘evolution’ on this issue has resulted in what appears to be a major shift among blacks and Hispanics toward favoring same-sex marriage."

But Bauer isn't calling for his party to change. Just the opposite: he predicts the GOP will remain opposed to marriage equality come 2016 and that the platform will continue its staunch antigay language.

If one wants to see active cases of untreated mental illness, look no farther than the GOP base.  These people are frightening.

The Macaca Thesis - And What Does McDonnell Believe

EDITORS NOTE: Some readers may not appreciate why I am giving so much coverage to the Bob McDonnell thesis debacle. If you have read prior posts that have detailed McDonnell's anti-gay agenda over the last six to nine years, then you know that McDonnell has played a significant role in making Virginia one of the most anti-gay states in the nation. To see McDonnell hopefully spiral down to defeat is a potential huge step in turning Virginia around on discrimination against LGBT citizens. The thought of McDonnell in the Governor's mansion is indeed frightening.

*

The Washington Post - which launched McDonnell's nightmare on Sunday - has a good column today that looks at why Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell's 1989 thesis is important and why it needs to remain under high scrutiny and a major part of the campaign for Governor. It highlights everything that I have wanted brought out about McDonnell and his extremism and devotion to the agenda of Pat Robertson and The Family Foundation, the Virginia affiliate of James Dobson's foul Focus on the Family. Here are some column highlights:

*

Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate for governor of Virginia, didn't really mean it when he equated homosexuality with drug abuse and pornography as evils that "the government must restrain, punish, and deter."

*

Or when he urged that "every level of government should statutorily and procedurally prefer married couples over cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators," adding, "The cost of sin should fall on the sinner, not the taxpayer."

*

McDonnell's thesis is a 93-page, 170-footnote "macaca" moment -- and, like that moment, self-inflicted. Had McDonnell not mentioned the thesis to Post reporter Amy Gardner -- he misleadingly described it as an essay on "welfare policy" -- it might never have surfaced. There are so many delicious aspects to the McDonnell uproar:

*

The irony of watching a staunch social conservative complain that hot-button social issues are being deployed against him -- this after years of social conservatives revving up their base with this approach. Now that McDonnell needs votes from the bluest part of the state, it's suddenly foul play that Creigh Deeds, his Democratic opponent, "continues to focus on divisive issues."

*

The irony of watching what-they-do, not-what-they-say politics flipped upside down as well. Just a few weeks ago, Republicans were focused on a single sentence from Justice Sonia Sotomayor about the "wise Latina." Then, it made sense to focus on Sotomayor's sentence, not her copious judicial record. Now, it's unfair to look at McDonnell's writings when his legislative history is open for all to see.

*

[I]t seems just as likely that McDonnell's supposed restraint stems from pragmatic acceptance of political reality as from a marked change in views. There's every reason to think that McDonnell would govern as conservatively as the current politics of the state would allow. His professions of relative disinterest in social issues are unconvincing. As for his efforts to dismiss the thesis as the idle musings of a callow youth: Those are simply insulting to the voters of Virginia.

*

The Roanoke Times likewise goes after McDonnell and ask questions that he needs to be forced to answer. If he refuses to answer, then I venture that it is a safe bet that McDonnell still holds the views laid out in his CBN thesis. That would speake volumes to Virginia voters:

*

McDonnell, today, flees his earlier writing lest Virginians see through the carefully crafted mask of moderation he wears while campaigning for governor. We were heartened to hear him reject some of the views he once held.

*

McDonnell points to his record in the General Assembly and during his partial term as attorney general as proof that he has changed That record is not as flattering as he seems to think, though. Those who have followed his political career found few surprises in his thesis. Several colleagues say he worked zealously to implement many of the proposals he espoused 20 years ago. He twice won the conservative Family Foundation's legislator of the year award.

*

McDonnell owes Virginians a more detailed explanation. He might start by answering some lingering questions based on his thesis, explaining where his views have changed, when and why.

*
Should abortion be illegal? In all cases, including rape and incest?

*
Do political leaders and the Supreme Court still need to "correct the conventional folklore about the separation of church and state"?

*
Will you oppose "special rights for homosexuals or single-parent unwed mothers"? Which rights are special? Which are not?

*
Do your Democratic friends and colleagues "seek to shepherd a nation of powerless incompetents"?

*
Do all your Republican friends and colleagues share a philosophy that "embraces the talents and worth of all people?" Do you?