Meaning, why are we talking about Elena Kagan’s sexual orientation at all? That is the correct take, intellectually. However, I still don’t like this cutesy unconvincing stuff from the Administration. I mean, come on: Eliot Spitzer is going to give us the truth about her dating history? I’d far prefer “fuck off; it’s none of your business” vs. “fuck off, and how dare you suggest such an awful thing, and here are some second-hand statements from unreliable people who will tell you she’s straight.” (I don’t know who the close female friend is, but that whole sniffy business about how tough it is for smart women to attract men . . . um. Yeah. I’ve noticed.)
I know I’m getting perilously close to Andrew Sullivan territory, but the way this is being approached is kind of insulting to the LGBT community, of which I am a nominal member. Insulting, as well, to other sentient beings.
Really: if it’s none of our business, and the answer is “fuck off,” then give us a good, testosterone-driven/ovarian “fuck off,” and not some little infantile wimpy tap dance.
Exit question: what if JFK’s response to questions of his Catholicism had been to send people out to claim that no, he wasn’t Catholic, and it was a horrific thing to suggest that he was? Wouldn’t that have been, at the least, unwise and a bit odd? And if he weren’t Catholic, but it was thought that he was, wouldn’t people have expected to hear that from him, rather than his handlers wrapping him in silk and “protecting” him from any potentially awkward questions?
* My headlines are, admittedly, going to shit: the only thing worse than my usual “opening phrase from a sentence right out of the post” trick (the one Gerard hates) is this psuedo-Yeatsish descriptive stuff.
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
The reason why, AFAICT, has to do with the Left’s utter intellectual exhaustion. If you oppose X, it is due to Y failing.
Lack of voyeurism on the Right is turning this play into a difficult setup.
I think the whole exercise by the administration is an insult to the Gay community of which I am not a part of at all.
In fact it is the reaction of the left that is the real story here, the defensiveness that tells the tale on what would be an otherwise boring nomination.
The white house’s fear of actually celebrating what could be considered a great blow for diversity says all the LGBT community has to know about where on the bus they actually sit with this administration.
But I would take issue with your statement about men and smart women. You and my wife are both smart women and seem to have done all right. Apparently it just takes men with tasteto appreciate smart women.
When the White House went on record with their version of Elena Kagan’s supposed sexual preference, Kagan’s sexuality become a legitimate issue. If the White House is lying about Kagan’s sexuality, what else are they lying about? If the Obami had any brains, they would issued a no comment with respect to Kagan’s sexuality.
Then on the bright side, Kagan not formally coming out of her glass closet is driving Miss Andrea Sullivan over the edge. Please pass the popcorn.