It has happened. Dems could not win Houston with factual arguments or on principle, so they have resorted to ad hominem attacks and pejoratives to distract voters from the issues and generate sensationalism in the place of logical debate. This should come as no surprise. What should surprise Houston voters is that supposed conservatives are sabotaging their own front-runners with the very same venom commonly expected of Dems.
Republican poser and career hack Dave Jennings at Big Jolly has injected his own brand of name-calling into the local political discourse. Avoiding the more sophisticated pejoratives, e.g. “Fascist,” “Racist,” and/or “Xenophobe,” terms typically directed at conservatives with good ideas and principled stands, Jennings has opted for the locker-room slur of past decades, calling upstanding GOP candidate Brian Cweren “gay.” That such childish mudslinging can even pass for political dialogue in Houston is laughable.
As Jennings wrote at Big Jolly,
Mr. Cweren is a candidate in District C and I have to admit that I scratched my head the other day when I got an eblast from HCRP Chairman Jared Woodfill stating that the party had endorsed Mr.Cweren but my puzzlement was because his positions on the issues seemed at odds with the party’s goals – I had no idea he was gay, nor would it have mattered to me. But I don’t remember a time when the party endorsed an openly gay candidate. What makes it amusing is that at the same time, the party elders continue to criticize Houston Mayor Annise Parker because she is, well, gay! She’s a lesbian, dontcha know! And then on the radio, I hear uber Republican Paul Bettencourt endorsing Dave Wilson for mayor because, well, Mayor Parker is promoting a homosexual agenda!
Ya can’t make this stuff up! Ain’t politics a blast?
The logic employed by Jennings is that Cweren has no wife or ex-wife, apparently making him “openly gay.” This sort of pedestrian, slanderous rant should give people a good chuckle, only that it is doing damage to the level of discourse in Houston, reducing ideological discussions to contests over who has the best and most derisive slur. Furthermore, Jennings posting the response from venerable GOP consultant Eric Weinmann is no retraction, and readers should not view it as such. These false and tasteless comments must be fully withdrawn. That either camp is having to spend even a second responding to such third grade antics should shame Jennings. But then, distracting voters from the issues is probably Jenning’s intent. To be fair, the claim that Cweren is gay originally came from Don Hooper at the Houston Chronicle, but the regurgitation by Jennings of this baseless accusation clearly carries an ulterior motive.
It is becoming ever more apparent to those watching that Jennings does not actually support conservative solutions to the present challenges facing the nation since Jennings spends so much time trying to make conservatives into hypocrites, instead of talking about conservative policies that work. Most likely a “closet” centrist that discounts conservative arguments offhand without examining their salient features, Jennings opts for vicious and personal attacks against conservatives, substituting genuine rebuttals of conservative principles with silly insults that would make those who accused Christine O’Donnel of being a “witch” blush. How embarrassing? Is this the best one of the most widely read GOP-endorsed blogs on the net can do, to tear down upstanding candidates with conservative platforms? What is even more strange is that Big Jolly is considered conservative. None of the content ever veers beyond Clintonian centrism. At Patriot Statesman, open dialogue between opposing points of view is encouraged, despite Patriot Statesman’s default alignment being conservative (a fact which Patriot Statesman does not conceal) unlike Big Jolly, which bills itself as conservative while spewing venomous vitriol at the very people it purports to represent. As Jenning’s states in his “About” section, “My goal here is to have ‘voices’ that represent many sides of conservatism and Republicanism. As well as libertarianism.” These “voices” seem to be nonexistent on Big Jolly. Using content alone at Big Jolly as a barometer, in what universe can Jennings claim to represent conservatives? Jennings claiming his content represents conservatism is akin to Romney claiming he opposes ObamaCare on philosophical grounds. If the evidence is any indicator, Jennings is a plant, a troll with a blog, and those who have made the mistake of thinking he is conservative have been duped.
Character assassination is not a valid or indeed adequate response to Cweren’s ideas or his platform. Big Jolly readers deserve better. Conservatives deserve better. And good men like Brian Cweren deserve better.