« LGBT-onics and the Dem platform (II) | Main | Mental Health Break: The "Nightmare Ticket" »
August 21, 2008
The McCain-Manhunt witch hunt (III)
Posted by: Chris
In what perhaps (we can hope!) is the last chapter in the Manhunt-McCain drama (background here and here), it's been widely accepted as fact on the blogosphere that John McCain's presidential campaign returned the $2,300 contribution it received from Jonathan Crutchley, one of two co-founders of the gay hook-up site Manhunt.
Hardly surprising, if it's actually true, but the sourcing is far too thin to treat it as fact.
Every such claim I've seen in gay or mainstream sites link back to this article in the Boston Herald that relies on neither Crutchley or the McCain campaign but instead on Larry Basile, Manhunt's other co-founder and the CEO of Online Buddies, Inc., which owns the site:
McCain’s camp seemed just as eager to distance themselves from the brief alliance. McCain spokesman Jeff Grappone didn’t return multiple phone calls on the subject, and Crutchley has apparently been informed that his $2,300 will be returned.
“He said, ‘If John is too good for my money, I’ll give it to (presumptive Democratic nominee) Barack (Obama),’ ” Basile said yesterday.
Crutchley, who originally defended his donation in an online post, did not return a call for comment.
Considering longtime Democrat Basile's business and political bias here, it's a bit much to rely on him as the one and only hearsay source, especially since Basile uses the claim to swear that Crutchley has also had a total change of heart:
Crutchley has since written a “touching” letter to the employees at Manhunt, according to Basile, and is now committed to supporting Obama.
“Someone had a reality check,” Basile said.
Basile, who described himself as a “staunch Democrat,” said Crutchley has given the maximum amount to Obama.
Color me very skeptical, considering Crutchley's longtime record as a partisan Republican and remembering his original justification for backing McCain was based on national security issues. If in fact he's switching allegiance to Obama just because he's miffed that McCain returned his money, then Basile himself (unwittingly) concedes Crutchley is in for another "reality check":
[Basile] said he wouldn’t be surprised, considering the subject matter of the Web site, if Obama returns the $2,300 as well.
“Barack can’t endorse this kind of adult content. It’s sort of like a third rail,” Basile said. “I would imagine if it’s tough for one, it’s tough for the other.”
A new bit of info that surprises me much more than McCain's (alleged) rebuff is a nugget from Bay Window's site Edge-Boston that Crutchley and Basile were not just partners in creating Manhunt but are "life partners" as well.
So much for the mutual back-slapping we've seen among Crutchley's critics that his resignation from Manhunt has purified the sex site of pernicious moderate Republican influence. Since the Crutchley-Basile household remains the beneficiary of revenue from Manhunt through their combined ownership interest as well as Basile's ongoing role as chief executive officer, the GOP taint remains. Out damn'd spot, out I say!
If nothing else, news of the Crutchley-Basile relationship goes to show the futility of these ideological witch hunts, at least as measured by their effectiveness on effecting real change. That will, of course, be lost on the politically correct zealots whose real motivation is the opportunity to feel superior and to signal to gay Republicans their status as lepers within our "community." (As if they needed reminding.)
Along with the wasted activist energy, it's that message of exclusion -- which treats gay support for Republicans for non-gay reasons as equivalent or worse than anti-gay bigots -- that's the real problem with the witch hunt at Manhunt, yet another disappointing example of gay liberal intolerance.
When the issue is intolerance, simplistic appeals to the First Amendment are beside the point, which remains lost on some of those who commented in response by my last post on the topic. We wouldn't be having this debate if Crutchley's critics had merely been criticizing Crutchley for backing McCain, something I've done myself in posts on the Arizona senator's truly rotten gay rights record.
But of course they didn't. The gay liberal blog posts (and comments) on the subject are chock full of the usual smear of gay Republicans as "self-loathing Nazi Jews." What's worse, the very idea of the Manhunt boycott was to say loud and clear that gay Republicans have no place in businesses with gay customers -- and by extension in leadership roles in the community.
Then again, these (situational) ideological purists are too busy doing their Church Lady superiority dance to notice, much less care.
(Above: very clever graphic via The Gist)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e553fcad608833
Comments
-
This whole episode shows the depths of ridiculousness and self-parody much of the gay community has descended into. Frankly, if this is all that comes of the gay role in Election 2008, we don't deserve progress.
-
I'm certain Obama has the most vile supporters. If you review the supporters of Obama and McCain, Obama would have the majority of childmolesters ,rapists,abortionists,prostitutes,dishonorable discharged military, gang members, Terrorists, and other scum.
Do not support the Obamanation!!!
Vote for McCain an American Hero not a "0"bama
-
Kris on Aug 21, 2008 10:58:09 AM:
I'm certain Obama has the most vile supporters. If you review the supporters of Obama and McCain, Obama would have the majority of childmolesters ,rapists,abortionists,prostitutes,dishonorable discharged military, gang members, Terrorists, and other scum.
Jeez Kris - now there's an enlightened comment. So glad you're here to ad erudition to this blog.
-
Chris:
You and I fundamentally disagree on the derision that should be meted out to the oxymoronic prospect of gay Republicanism - wherever it rears its illogical head - especially when my dollars - however reduced by half-measures in Crutchley's pocket (and I don't care if its a half-cent prorated) - are spent on electing Republicans.(LOL)
-
"To vanquish this fear, especially when first coming out, many of us become preoccupied with the pursuit of sex........."
And that would surely explain how the population of the planet arrived at roughly six billion people.
We queers were out there, fucking our headlights out, while hetereo Mommy and Daddy attended Church services on Sunday and read the 'Good Book' the rest of the week.
-
"Frankly, if this is all that comes of the gay role in Election 2008, we don't deserve progress.
Frankly, that comment sounds more like something coming out of the mouths of Robertson, Dobson or Wildmon.
Thanks for the 'enlightenment' and support of the gay community, Kevin, regardless of your political affiliation.
I was obviously mistaken when I assumed that this was a safe
haven fort gays to post without being put down for doing so.Perhaps you could provide us with another str8, fag-bashing URL liker Gawker to support your comment? There's such a shortage of them, you know?
-
"Frankly, if this is all that comes of the gay role in Election 2008, we don't deserve progress.
Frankly, that comment sounds more like something coming out of the mouths of Robertson, Dobson or Wildmon.
Thanks for the 'enlightenment' and support of the gay community, Kevin, regardless of your political affiliation.
I was obviously mistaken when I assumed that this was a safe
haven fort gays to post without being put down for doing so.Perhaps you could provide us with another str8, fag-bashing URL liker Gawker to support your comment? There's such a shortage of them, you know?
-
Chris,
You are still not making yourself clear. Your distinction between people who objected to the donation because it is McCain (alright with you) and those whom objected because McCain is the Republican nominee for President (not alright with you) is spliting hairs. Your suggestion that boycott of someone's business because of the owners' political views are somehow illegitamate ("intolerant" in your inapt phrase) is just plain wrong -- no one has a right to someone's else's business, with whom the politically disagree. Your idea that this Crutchly guy or his partner should be considered "leaders" of the "Gay Community" is tone deaf to what these guys do for a living. Perhaps you feel vulnerable because of your own political views but no one deserves to be a leader of anything -- you actually have to be chosen by those whom you would lead. Were some people on blogs and in comment sections offensive? Undoubtedly, but you did not call out any single one of them. It seems that you had a problem that someone would object to Crutchley's donation and argued that boycott was "ineffective" and illegitanate. But the boycott in fact got a response from the business in question -- so you are wrong on that too. Moreover, anyone has a right to criticize anyone elses' public donation and there really is nothing wrong with them doing so. I am sure you have a point to make that is worthy of discussion but in three posts on this subject you have not made it clear what it is.
-
I was obviously mistaken when I assumed that this was a safe haven fort gays to post without being put down for doing so.
Or here's some appropriate advice for Chuck: "If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen."
-
Gawker is a site founded and edited by Nick Denton, who is openly gay. And has a sense of humor. Something that folks over at that other site founded by gay men seem to need to find, as well as some other folks around here. Ironic that we all get the label 'gay' when so many of us are so terribly unhappy.
Gawker got the whole stupid story absolutely, positively spot on -- like they usually do when the story is a sign of a larger stupidity festering in our society.
-
Aight everybody, let's all just simma down now, simma down! We can pack only so much drama into one comment train. We are talking about Manhunt here, after all!
Chuck, you are absolutely right that this should be "a safe
haven for gays to post without being put down for doing so." The vast majority of this blog's readers would agree I think that personal attacks say far more about the attacker and his/her lack of a subtantive response that they do about the target.That said, I wrote long ago in the blog's "about page" that, "If you’re looking for validation and reassurance about any particular world view, you’ve come to the wrong place. If you believe we can all gain from an honest, direct, no-holds-barred dialogue, then welcome, and please contribute your thoughts."
You took serious umbrage to my post highlighting and responding to a comment by another reader, when in fact I didn't attack him personally at all and stuck very much to the substance of what he wrote. I considered that a compliment to him -- much as his comment was to me -- and I think from what he wrote he took it that way, too.
Absolutely nothing anyone wrote here attacks you or anyone else that I've seen. There's just a bit of overwrought rhetoric, that's all.
TRM: You have somehow completely misread me. I never distinguished between targeting a business owner for backing McCain vs. for backing a Republican. If you'll read the last four paragraphs of my earlier post, I spell exactly when I think those sorts of boycotts do make sense.
It would indeed by hypersensitive to suggest that any and all boycott decisions, whether personal or collective, are the result of "intolerance" rather than simple "disagreement." At the same time, I would think we'd all agree it is "intolerant" to suggest that gay Republicans should be removed from a management or supervisory role from every gay group or business. That's the clear message here, especially when those calling for their exclusion take such obvious glee in insulting their target(s) and reveling in their leper status. I have tried in all these posts to put the Manhunt flap into that sort of broader context.
-
Here here.
-
"Gawker got the whole stupid story absolutely, positively spot on -- like they usually do when the story is a sign of a larger stupidity festering in our society."
This excerpt from:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.06/blog.html"New York City-based Gawker is a chatty morph of Page Six and the old Spy magazine - a must-read for anyone involved in the Gothamite stew of news junkiness, celebrity trash, and bitchy gossip."
Wow! Am I ever impressed. The consummate source of information on the human condition. A definitive source of fact and intelligencia to support your theory about the "the larger stupidity festering in our society."
It's kind of like holding up a copy of Mad Magazine with Alfred E,. Newman gracing the cover, as a source of intelligence.
Or better yet, holding up the bible as'proof-perfect' that homosexuality is wrong!
Incidentally, while a Google search did make reference to his 'claim' of being gay (there are some who think he is str8 or bi), there was very little to indicate that Gawker is a gay blog in the sense Citizen Crain, Gay.com, Queerty, Towleroad, et al, are exclusively gay blogs.
-
Correction. I called Gawker a blog when in reality it is a magazine.
-
Interesting discussion and thanks for the updates.
When I am able to contain the white-hot fury that boils up inside of me when confronting what passes for political discourse in America, I do my best job of expressing myself.
But at the same time, I recognize that I cannot always contain it and I view this site as a relatively safe place to explode. I always calm down and get over myself.
One tendency I see in your writing, Chris, that you generally manage to check, is the over-reliance on straw men to represent those with whom you disagree.
It's only a tendency in your case, Chris. In the case of Kevin, it's the fatal flaw which renders him unreadable.
Go back and reread Kevin's posts on the two conventions and pay attention to one key difference. Notice how many times in the Republican preview he cites his personal experience in the party and his conversations with gay Republicans and Log Cabin members to learn how they plan to address the role of gays within their party.
Then search the Democratic preview for ANY instance of talking to an actual, living, breathing gay Democrat.
And in both pieces, he is very comfortable passing judgment on gay Democrats, their leaders, and their strategy as somehow being worse than (how sad it's come to that!) gay Republicans because, well, the Democrats aren't as "better than" the Republicans as they ought to be.
I never recognize myself or any of the gay Democrats I know in Kevin's writing, thus he never manages to give me any reason to consider the validity of his claims. It's the transparent falseness of the "other" he demonizes that makes him a failure as an advocate for his point of view.
-
I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I understand then that you don't have a problem with soemone boycotting a business because they disagree with the owner.
"At the same time, I would think we'd all agree it is "intolerant" to suggest that gay Republicans should be removed from a management or supervisory role from every gay group or business."
Except is that what we are talking about. We're talking about this guy, who OWNS this business, whose customers and fellow employees object. Without customers, no business.
The comments to this entry are closed.
dk on Aug 21, 2008 9:15:32 AM:
MANHUNT:
Has Manhunt destroyed Gay Culture? A Cost Benefit Analysis of Our Quest to Get Laid BY Michael Joseph Gross
http://out.com/detail.asp?id=24005
Great Article, please find sample below
"...But the most powerful secrets that live on Mnahunt aren't the ones we keep formt ehoutside world. The most powerful secrets on Manhunt are the ones we keep from ourselves. Practically every gay man has his own version of this secret, which we learned to keep while growing up in the closet: the secret fear that, if we were truly know, we would never be loved.
If you were asked to design the perfect weapon to expoloit this vulnerability as it manifests itself in attractive urban gay men, you'd want someting that would intensify our isolation, exaggerate our propensity to objectify each other, and persuade us to objectify ourselves--by encouraging us to believe that our purpose is to look good and have lots of sex.
Manhunt would be your perfect weapon, a heat-seeking missile for the weaknesses that have plagued us for decades....
Jim Foster, a leading gay activist in the 1970s, often said, "What this movement is aobut is fucking." We are defined by our sex drive--and our politcal goals amount, essentially, to ensuring that we are in no way legally penalized for it. In our personal lives, even now,almost 40 years after Stonewall, coming out requires a painful exertion of energy to rout out the puritan fear that gay sex is bad. To vanquish this fear, expecially when first coming out, many of us become preoccupied with the pursuit of sex........."