Matthew Yglesias is one of the best-known left-wing bloggers who does not hesitate to attack anyone he considers to be bigoted (under very expansive and political definitions). Yglesias blogs at Think Progress, a blog run by the Center for American Progress. Think Progress, much like Media Matters (also started by CAP), scours the internet seeking to find a Republican or conservative who has said a word or phrase which could be construed as or twisted into an insult to some group.
Yet Yglesias resorted to bigoted language in talking about whether Republicans would object to a homosexual nominee to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court. Republican Senator John Thune said that nominating someone who was openly gay to the Supreme Court “would be a bridge too far right now.” Yglesias called this comment “old-fashioned, un-subtle bigotry.”
In that very same post, however, Yglesias referred to a possible heterosexual nominee as a “breeder,” which is a derogatory term for heterosexuals. Using that term is the equivalent of calling a homosexual a “fag.” Sounds like new-fashioned, un-subtle bigotry. I can’t wait to see the Media Matters’ press release.
The very same day that Yglesias resorted to a bigoted slur, Yglesias separately attacked Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, minority leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for allegedly making racist comments over 20 years ago. Sessions’ two-decades-old offense was attempting to make a joke that he thought the KKK was “OK” until he found out that some of them were “pot smokers,” and for describing the NAACP and ACLU as “un-American” and “communist inspired.” Sessions claimed the remarks were taken out of context, but Yglesias rejected any such possibility, asking rhetorically, “And on the second [hand] what was the context.” (Italics in original.)
So, what was the context of Yglesias using the term “breeder”? Perhaps it’s time Yglesias and Think Progress practiced what they preach.
UPDATE No. 2: In a response to this post, Yglesias states that I am humorless, and that he falsely was accused of “anti-straight bigotry,” which is not possible since he is a “hetero-American.” He misses the point (or avoids it, take your pick). He was accused of using a bigoted word (which he now uses as the title of his response post), which in and of itself would be the sort of thing frequently used by liberals to get people they don’t like fired (e.g., Don Imus). Whether he is a bigot or not is irrelevant to the point, as it was to Don Imus.
Further Proof Liberal Bloggers Need To Study History
Liberal Ugliness Revealed On The JournoList