MSNBC Host Joy Reid Wrote Numerous Anti-Gay Articles on Her Old Blog

[Hassin Bin Sober]

MSNBC Host Joy Reid Wrote Numerous Anti-Gay Articles on Her Old Blog

https://www.mediaite.com/online/msnbc-host-joy-reid-wrote-numerous-anti-gay-articles-on-her-old-blog/

Recently resurfaced internet archives show political commentator Joy Reid wrote a dozen blog posts in 2007, 2008, and 2009 that contained homophobic conspiracies and anti-gay jokes.

The MSNBC weekend host ran a blog called The Reid Report — which is the same name as her now-defunct cable news show — a decade ago while she wrote for the Miami Herald. As first resurfaced by Twitter user Jamie_Maz, Reid wrote numerous bigoted blog posts smearing, mocking, and attacking former Florida governor Charlie Crist. These rants included calling Crist “Miss Charlie” and sarcastically using the tags “gay politicians” and “not gay politicians” — despite the fact that the twice-married, heterosexual man has never come-out as gay.

Reid went on to spread the crackpot conspiracy theory that Crist was actually a closeted gay man who refused to come out for fear that his sexual orientation would hurt his political career. Additionally, the AM Joy host claims Crist’s marriages to women are part of this elaborate cover up.


As bad as the conspiracy theory is in itself, Reid doesn’t just suggest Cris is gay — she assumes he is gay and proceeds to attack him for it. “Miss Charlie, Miss Charlie. Stop pretending, brother. It’s okay that you don’t go for the ladies,” wrote Reid in a 2007 post.

[tenderfoot]

1. There was a thread on this earlier...

and this is a right wing smear campaign by a right wing twitter user.

https://twitter.com/jamie_maz

Read through their tweets

[underthematrix]

5. Yes. Which is why I referred to it as a critical thinking exercise

[tenderfoot]

6. Greenwald is running with it...

He is such a tool.

[yardwork]

9. And we know that Greenwald is connected to Putin.

So why does Putin care about Joy?

[underthematrix]

10. We're responsible for our own stupidity and our willingness to be manipulated.

[BoneyardDem]

89. yes, he is a tool.

[populistdriven]

105. 2017 - the year most of us finally were convinced Greenwald is a tool.

I personally regret not realizing it sooner.

[George II]

8. And the original poster this morning sensibly self-deleted it.

[melman]

16. Did that person write the blogs?

No, obviously not. So that's totally irrelevant.

[tenderfoot]

18. lulz

Link to tweet

[melman]

20. Does Charlie Crist have the ultimate power of absolution?

You can use all the slurs you want and it all goes away if one guy says so. Is that how that works? Interesting.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

22. I guess it's ok if a gay or perceived gay kid gets beat up or bullied because some media hack...

... wants to get her homophobia on.


Charlie Crist says everything is fine.

[melman]

28. Of course

Because this is only about a personal affront to Charlie Crist. That's the only thing it's about. That one tiny little narrow thing, and if that's resolved..that's it. Done!

[Demsrule86]

56. Oh come on ...this is so transparent.

[SunSeeker]

99. +1

[Tipperary]

70. You seem to be very invested in this. Joy has apologized to Crist and the LGBT community.

I think her apology was genuine and heartfelt.

[Demsrule86]

78. They are after Joy because of her comments on Sen. Sanders.

[karynnj]

84. I doubt that is the motivation - they are likely parsing everything said by prominent Democrats

- and she is a prominent Democrat in the media.

I am repulsed by her having been part of the effort to smear Crist by writing or repeating allegations suggesting that he was gay and living a lie. She clearly showed a lack of judgment in blogging things that she absolutely could not have had any real knowledge on.

If this was part of a pattern of repeating smears or a pattern of homophobic comments, then this is serious. If it was a slip in judgment in repeating in her blog what were rumours in Florida, she needs not just the Crist forgiveness she has, but (IMO) an apology for spreading what was unverifiable harmful gossip to her followers.

Given how rumours spread, the gossiper can never correct the information with all the people who read (or heard) their smear. As she is now in the position as a MSNBC host, she has a huge platform. The ONLY way her comments on Jane Sanders come into play is that this recent accusation that smeared Jane Sanders and was untrue suggests that she has a problem with this and needs to be careful NOT to repeat rumours or unsourced accusations.

I hope she does address this, because I think she is a good, articulate media person otherwise. What is concerning was that this earlier Crist stuff shows a similar pattern of being willing to repeat (or even start in Sanders' case) rumours against people she does not support.

[R B Garr]

90. Will you apply these same purity standards to Bernie

and Jane? They said Clinton was getting money from Wall Street in exchange for favorable influence, but when asked, he could not produce a single policy that she influenced. Now we have Trump.

[karynnj]

93. If you give me a link where either says that, I will say that it is wrong

As I have said many times, he did call her on giving closed highly paid speeches to Goldman sacks and others --- as did Martin O'Malley before him. Trump did the same - as would any Republican. There was absolutely nothing illegal in getting paid for those speeches, but the political cost should have been obvious. Given that Wall Street is seen as a villain, ANY opponent, Republican or Democrat would have raised those speeches. Clinton gave them when it was highly expected that she would run for President which likely led to her payment being that high. The Clintons, at that point, did not need that money.

What I have questioned repeatedly is whether there was ever any statement made by either Sanders that accused Hillary of quid por quo. What there was was a strawman attack on Sanders that used as a strawman that he was accusing her of having taken money for favorable actions - which led to the question being asked. However, the missing link is that Sanders NEVER said she changed her position because of money.

As to Trump using a claim Bernie did, consider that it is hard to find any election where charges in the primary are NOT used. Part of the reason is that they often represent a vulnerability. Consider that Al Gore in 1988 was the first to bring up the policy that let Willie Horton out of prison, Bill Bradley used the claim that Gore was tarnished by his support of Clinton during impeachment, Howard Dean used the flip flop charge against Kerry (which can be used against any legislator.), and Clinton argued that she (and McCain) were ready too take the 3 am call and Obama wasn't. If you compare all of them to Sanders, the Clinton one was by far the worst. As a top Democrat, she suggested Obama was not ready to be President and could fail in an emergency AND she argued the Republican could! In contrast, Sanders mentioned paid speeches that everyone knew about.

[SunSeeker]

100. Yep. nt

[melman]

112. Invested?

Homophobia bothers me. A lot. I think it's bad when people write homophobic things. Really bad.


But hey, I realize we all have different standards.

[underthematrix]

2. LOL. Think of this post as a critical thinking exercise

This doesn't sound anti-gay. This sounds like anti-hypocrisy

[yardwork]

3. Joy said something mean about Bernie so Russian trolls go after her.

Interesting. Looks like collusion between Putin and Bernie's campaign.

[NurseJackie]

11. That's a very insightful observation. Thanks for sharing it.

3. Joy said something mean about Bernie so Russian trolls go after her.
Interesting. Looks like collusion between Putin and Bernie's campaign.

I'll bet you're not the only one to notice the timing in this... and the similarity to other events.

[HipChick]

24. Smear campaign by the left being posted on DU? She's apologized..

and fanned by the Alt-right? Let's move on...unless folks enjoy living in this shitshow of a Presidency..

[Arazi]

46. Yup eom

[yardwork]

66. You're being played.

This is all about turning Democrats against one another so that the opposition will keep winning.

Look at the timing of this. Why bring up an entertainer's comments about a politician from a decade ago? Why is this important now? What happened to make Joy's old blog posts suddenly topical?

Who benefits?

You know the answer. Republicans benefit when the Democratic vote is divided, when Democrats are angry with one another.

What just happened a couple days ago? Every single Democrat in the Senate voted against the horrible bill the Republicans slammed through. If Democrats had a majority in the Senate that bill wouldn't even have been up for a vote! It wouldn't exist.

There's a tight race in Alabama that could give us one more seat in the Senate. So suddenly, the internet is filled with manufactured outrage about gays vs. African Americans. That's how the Republicans won before.

Please don't take the bait.

[Arazi]

87. Joy Reid brought up a Bernie Sanders essay from 1972 as evidence of his misogyny!

I'm all about stopping the bullshit but it's not fair to lay the persistent scab picking on Bernie or his supporters. There's plenty of it going on from Joy Reid etc

[KPN]

103. Yup. Joy is and has been an attack

dog for her own personal views whether they align with fundamental Democratic Party views or not. One thing she is not is an across the landscape liberal. That's been obvious for quite some time.

[ecstatic]

12. +1000. This is why that side lost. The mean spirited hit jobs

are WAY over the top and off putting.

[NurseJackie]

73. ###

[Demsrule86]

77. Yes. +1000

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. Lol.

[R B Garr]

23. Yes, a gazillion times yes.

This is the entire show. Thank you, yard work.

[MrsCoffee]

50. Nailed it.

[stonecutter357]

53. +1000

[Demsrule86]

61. That is it...and it makes me feel slightly ill to see folks fall for it.

[alarimer]

81. Bullshit

Not everything is a fucking conspiracy.

[karynnj]

86. How exactly does this point to collusion between my Senator and Putin?

It seems far more likely that the RW is attacking Reid because she is a strong liberal. Not to mention, it is more significant that she wrote these things in her blogs. The blogs were public. This was not hacking private comments that were not intended to be public.

If anything, I think Reid needs to address the entire issue of repeating rumours - that might have been politically motivated. Imagine that a right leaning media person posted completely uncalled for rumours about Clinton and Huma, would that be ok?

I would suggest that Democrats admit that no one is perfect, Reid was wrong and Reid should address the issue of being to quick too repeat rumours, which could be political smears, without indicating they were rumour. We can take the high ground here. Most of the really outrageous dirty tricks campaigns have been done by the Republicans - from Segretti's dirty tricks in 1972 to Lee Atwater's dirty tricks in 1988 to the SBVT dirty tricks in 2004 - to the cottage industry of creating lists of people the Clintons murdered.

Compared to that list, Reid's blog posts pale, but if you accept it was ok to repeat rumours that Crist was really gay, then why would it be wrong to repeat similar rumours about Hillary Clinton? I think both are despicable. Not to mention, could that have harmed Crist, when he became a Democrat and ran against Rubio?

[R B Garr]

92. By your own standards, Bernie and Jane should also

step up and correct their unsubstantiated attacks on Hillary and Democrats. Now we have Trump.

Atonement indeed.

[karynnj]

95. It is crazy to claim that Republicans would not speak of HRC giving paid speeches to WS

and refusing to put out transcripts. He REFUSED to get into the email issue.

NOTHING Sanders said in the primaries rose to the level of questioning her ability to do important parts of being President - as the 3 am call ad did against Obama. That shows how strong primary accusations can be. Yet Obama made her SoS.

[SunSeeker]

120. HRC did not give speeches to "Wall Street."

That is wording straight from anti-Hillary propaganda.

[karynnj]

121. that is your opinion

So, I should have said that HRC gave speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms.

PS Wouldn't it make more sense to claim that I am using Bernie's wording -- when in fact, it is simply conventional shorthand.

Would you admit that the problem was it was a political mistake for Clinton to give these speeches in 2013 and 2014?

[SunSeeker]

122. Would you admit criticizing Hillary for giving paid speeches is sexist?

[karynnj]

123. No, because a MAN likely to be the next President making those same speeches

for that much money would be criticized after 2008/2009.

The anger against Wall Street which was widely seen as the reason the economy nearly went off the cliff and which was perceived as not paying a price for it was intense. As I have said the speeches were not illegal, just tone deaf.

Many things in 2016 were sexist - especially the reaction to her fainting when she had pneumonia - this wasn't.

[SunSeeker]

124. Men were never ripped for paid speeches in the past. Funny that. nt

[karynnj]

126. The source the amount and the timing were different

One reason that "men" weren't criticized is that there are no comparable examples of someone likely to become President getting huge dollars for speeches. First off, if they are in Congress - they can not accept money for speeches. You can also eliminate VP Gore, as he did not give paid speeches as VP.

That eliminates all of the Democratic nominees going back to Dukakis. I admit I have no idea if Dukakis, while Governor of Massachusetts gave paid speeches.

Personally, I would refrain from arguing sexism on anything where I could not find a clear example to support it. My reason is that I think there is sexism and I think that claiming it when there might be a reasonable explanation of a different cause, makes it harder to get people to listen when the cause is really sexism.

Not to mention, arguing that it was just sexism that led to Clinton's defeat (even with 3 million more votes) harms other women in their runs. Therefore arguing "sexism" also works against women.

[SunSeeker]

127. How dare a woman get paid more for speeches than some men!

[karynnj]

129. What a strange interpretation of what I wrote

If Martin O'Malley or Bernie had been paid ANYTHING for speeches to Wall Street in the years before running for President, it would also have been an issue even though I doubt anyone saw either as the likely next President of the US.

Let's say that Biden had been SoS in the first term, resigned and was running -- had he given closed door speeches for Wall Street, he would have been criticized just as HRC was for the same reason.

[SunSeeker]

131. My interpretation is correct.

My evidence? Male politicians have never been ripped in the same way for giving paid speeches to financial institutions (what you insist on calling "Wall Street" ). They sure as hell have not been accused of being "unqualified" for doing so.

[karynnj]

135. Your interpretation of what I wrote is more correct than mine?

Not all financial institutions as "wall street", but Goldman Sachs is. Note that Hillary Clinton herself used the phrase herself in calling for Wall street reform. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/

As I pointed out, most politicians (all members of Congress) are not allowed to make paid speeches -- not for anyone. There are very few people in Clinton's position in 2013 and 2014 - out of any office that would preclude her getting paid for speeches and very likely to be the next President. Among Democrats, she is unique on this.

Sanders was wrong to say she was unqualified for that and a laundry list of thing ranging from Iraq to the Panama trade deal, etc. On Wall Street he qualified his statement with "IF". It was an angry response to him interpreting things she said as calling him unqualified. He was totally wrong to do that, but it was not because she was a woman. Had Hillary Clinton been the President in the 1990s and Bill Clinton his opponent, there is no reason to think he would not have angrilly said the same thing.

Not to mention, the entire subtext of the 3 am commercial in 2008 was Obama was not up to being the President - pretty much the same thing, though Clinton did not state it outright.

[SunSeeker]

136. You're wrong, and I wish you'd put this same amount of energy criticizing Trump. nt

[karynnj]

137. I do -- and in fighting for action on combatting climate change -- and not just online

I do not accept any of your arguments and clearly do not think I am wrong.

Maybe you should spend your time actively working on issues, rather than spending all of your time turning EVERY issue into attacking Sanders because you are chose to blame him for Clinton's loss -- rather than the mood of the time, Trump's ability to amuse the media, or any missteps of Clinton herself.

[SunSeeker]

138. You're the one who brought up Clinton and Sanders replying to an OP about Joy Reid.

[karynnj]

140. I responded to others that claimed that Reid was being attacked because she had criticized Sanders

Therefore I was NOT the one who brought it up!

I disputed that she was being attacked just because she attacked Sanders in several posts, because this was a case where Reid, years ago, did something wrong -- which she herself apologized for.

[SunSeeker]

141. You were replying to the OP, which doesn't mention anything about Sanders (or Clinton). nt

[karynnj]

142. Look again - the sub thread starts with my response to Yardwork, speaking of Putin and Sanders.

Here is my first post here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9924166

Note that it is response to yardwork making the very strange claim that Bernie and Putin are linked.

I also responded to Demsrule86 with this comment - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9924113 Again, to argue that her post that they were against Reid because of comments on Sanders.
I do not think I responded to the op.

[SunSeeker]

143. Yardwork did not bring up Clinton. You did.

And you smeared her, claimed she "gave speeches to WS." All to defend Bernie...in an OP about Joy Reid. And you call Yardwork's post "strange"?

[karynnj]

147. It is not a smear to say that she gave speeches to WS -- she did! Goldman Sachs is part of WS!

He claimed Bernie was linked to Putin -- and that is completely weird! I did not mention her speeches in that post, but in later posts when others claimed he was wrong to criticise her on the speeches. The ONLY mention of Clinton was to point how how bad the accusations were on Crist - pointing out that he/she likely has no use for people on the right who had a Clinton/Huma whisper campaign. That, in fact, is what happened to Crist


The point is that she/he brought up Bernie in a negative way -- because of 2016.

[SunSeeker]

148. No, she didn't. Why not say GS instead of WS? Why bring up Hillary AT ALL?

There was absolutely no good reason to do that.

[karynnj]

149. So, Goldman Sachs is not a premier Wall Street Firm?

In the response to R. B. Garr who spoke of Sanders' attacks on Clinton - I had just read her earlier comment to me that spelled out that that was the attack she meant - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9924312

I have no idea who responded to my response there as it was removed before I saw it.

This is an extremely useless argument. Anyone following can look through the thread and see that - as I said - others brought Clinton and Sanders into it. I note that you are note questioning either Yardwork or Garr who BOTH questioned why people are going after Reid aren't going after Bernie -- bringing Bernie into this. Respond all you want, the thread is here (unless you can get others to self delete, though I doubt it is worth it!)

[SunSeeker]

152. Yardwork never brought up Hillary. Your Hillary smear is gratuitous, pointless.

You weren't responding to Garr. Hillary has nothing to do with this Joy Reid controversy. Nor does she have anything to do with why certain people might be ginning up this divisive Joy Reid controversy. She certainly does not deserve to be bashed in this thread.

[George II]

101. Joy Reid apologized to Charlie Crist, and he graciously and unequivocally accepted the apology.

[karynnj]

104. True, and that is very gracious of him and appropriate on her part,

However, she should also make the point to people who followed her blog or follow her now that she sees that spreading rumours or smears is something that was wrong and something hard to really correct.

Note that by apologizing, Reid herself is admitting that she was wrong.

[stonecutter357]

163. get over it Bernie is out of the picture.

[karynnj]

164. Bernie would not be on my list if I were forced to list the three people I think would

make the best President - even if it was specified that electability is not important. However, Bernie is still a sitting Senator and has been a strong voice in the last year. I was not excited by either choice in 2016.

My comment does NOT come from who supported whom in 2016 or even what I think of Reid as an MSNBC host (she's usually very good). I think that publicly spreading unsourced claims - intended to harm someone politically - but going to the victim's integrity (not that he could be gay, but that he was said to be living a lie) is wrong. I am not saying she should be fired or suspended, but I do wish - especially after her apology (and its acceptance) that she would speak to the damage to the culture that things like this are passed around.

Everyone has a tendency to accept things from people they respect, like or are in the same "tribe" that they would reject from someone on the other side. Whisper campaigns that people, who are publicly heterosexual, are really gay come up all the time on the right - and that is only one type of lie passed to create a negative picture of their opponent. Obviously, from your misguided attack on me, you were strongly allied with Hillary Clinton. I bet you - and anyone here - could list a long series of fake claims spread for decades that you have to admit were at least a part of the reason that she was considered dishonest.

My point is that this is an issue where DEMOCRATS have the high ground. While not immaculate, there is far less a pattern of dirty tricks on our side. Seggretti, Atwater, Rove, and many Trump people including Michael Flynn Jr show this is a pervasive method of the Republicans. Obviously, Reid is far from all of these people. They CREATED the rumors. She merely repeated them as many of us have. While I think this is an opportunity for her to speak of how easy it is to spread smears without even stopping to realize that that is what you are doing, clearly she has already done the minimum needed - she owned up to it and apologized.

[SunSeeker]

102. Yep. nt

[MaryMagdaline]

4. Everytime I respond this post gets pulled

Is it me?

[George II]

7. No she didn't.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. Yeah huh.

[melman]

15. Oh yes she did

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. Then why did she apologize????

[Adrahil]

33. You're overplaying this....

Our nation has had a significant philosophical shift over the last 10 years. Many people used to use any-gay slurs as a routine insult... even some gay people! I still have to correct myself when I get angry and refer to someone as a "cocksucker."

So yeah, saying those things was wrong. If you never said things like that in the past, good for you. Many of us did, without specific homophobic intent. So let's not spin this into something it wasn't.

[grantcart]

108. More to the point, why didn't you run her apology?

[oasis]

19. No dead horses were harmed during the making of this thread.

[Lordquinton]

21. Interesting replies to this thread

Attacking the messenger, not the message.

[jcmaine72]

25. Breitbart clickbait that has no place here.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. I agree. If we ever see it we should alert!

[emulatorloo]

27. Crist accepted her sincere apology

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029922727

Maybe you should consider self-delete or a correction to your thread title?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

30. Why would I delete or correct?

Last edited Mon Dec 4, 2017, 01:35 AM - Edit history (1)

It happened and she made some very homophobic comments.

For the last 24 hours people have been saying what she said wasn't homophobic. Now she apologized and that changes history?

Sorry. It doesn't work that way.

She said some pretty nasty things.

Silly Mark, of COURSE he would ... now ... McCain's just a Senator. But if Mac were to get into the White House, Miss Charlie not only would refrain from jumping after McCain, he'd immediately start planning the state funeral down to the last flamingo-shaped napkin and get his decorator to the West Wing faster than you can say "George Takei!"

This went wayyy beyond calling out "hypocrisy"

Her stereotyping bull shit shows disdain for gay people.

[greyl]

43. Because the spin you've chosen is unbecoming of a DUer. nt

[SMC22307]

44. It's not spin. Not "fake news." Those are the words...

that spewed forth from Joy Reid's mouth, er, keyboard.

[greyl]

47. The words aren't in dispute. nt

[kcr]

48. IKR? Where did this concept of being wrong on the internet come from?

That's crazy talk!

[emulatorloo]

83. To be fair, you should edit OP to include her sincere apology and Crist's acceptance of it

As it stands your post is only half the story.

MSNBC's Joy Reid apologizes for 'insensitive' LGBT blog posts
https://t.co/eOEd86AgXh

Reid wrote:

"There is no excusing it"

"In addition to friends and coworkers and viewers, I deeply apologize to Congressman Crist, who was the target of my thoughtlessness."

Crist replied:

Link to tweet

[Kirk Lover]

29. Sorry but this is literally not even a blip on the radar with the shit storm that is

occurring around us.

[peggysue2]

94. See how this works?

Reid's comments are disappointing but they are what they are. She has owned the words and comments from her former blog and apologized.

In the greater scheme of things this is indeed a blip on the radar.

What we should be looking at is the timing of the material, right on the heels of a 'very, very bad'. news cycle for Trump and his sycophants. And the fact that Joy Reid, a member of the press, is a consistently sharp critic of all things Trump. What a convenient distraction and takedown of another Democratic commentator. And oh yes, let's throw Sanders and his wife into the mix. That's sure to produce a catfight.

That doesn't mitigate or excuse Joy's comments of 10 years ago. But if you cannot see what's playing underneath this exposure then you're only pretending to be awake. And being played like a fiddle, once again.

[MFM008]

31. people can change

Barack Obama wasnt on board with gay marrige but he got onboard.
I used to be anti-abortion now im a staunch advocate.

[Lint Head]

34. Pointing GOP hipocracy is apropos.

[LexVegas]

35. I see the "attack minorities" playbook is still in effect.

[melman]

36. Yes, Joy Reid attacked a minority group

It's really a shame that she chose to do that but what can you do.

[Demsrule86]

63. Her sin was to be perceived as attacking Sen. Sanders...and we know this...I have to say.

Some think they are helping Sen. Sanders, but it makes me less likely to ever vote for him in a 20 primary...Glenn is a Russian troll and is saying this after the perceived insult to Sen. Sanders by Ms Reid? The Russians are involved with this!

[melman]

110. I have no idea what this post is about

Seriously. Glenn? Russians? What is all of this?


This is about Joy Reid writing homophobic blogs.

[Demsrule86]

133. Really...you do know the source of this?

It is the Mediaite...old shit...dug up because of her criticism of Sanders...so obvious.

[melman]

145. No

The source of this is Joy Reid's old blog. The one where she wrote many homophobic posts.

[Demsrule86]

154. Mediate dug it up and why do you think they did that? Joy actually criticized Sen. Sanders...

something apparently Russian loving Greenwald can't tolerate. I like Joy and agree with what she said about Sen. Sanders...he has had difficulty with the communication of women's issues especially abortion rights in my opinion. As for her old writings...many people have evolved on this issue...and she was actually attacking GOP Crist (bad way to do it of course). I personally see no reason to get riled about this...I like Joy...and mostly those outraged are ones hoping Sen. Sanders will run in 18. I hope he doesn't.

[melman]

158. This has nothing to do with any of that

Joy Reid wrote many terribly homophobic entries on her blog. That's what this is about. No matter how much you insist otherwise.

[Demsrule86]

162. Yes...some years ago. If you want to help the right and green riffraff get rid of

anyone who says anything about Sen. Sanders or others...fine I will not get involved. She apologized. It happened some years ago...and I know people who have evolved on this issue. I shudder to think what would happen if shit I wrote years ago surfaced. Sam Seder made a joke and now he is fired...the right is digging up anything trying to get rid of those on the left whom they dislike. Don't help them.

[melman]

174. ''I shudder to think what would happen if shit I wrote years ago surfaced.''

Why? What did you write?

[Demsrule86]

179. I just wanted 'people to keep their sexuality in the bedroom (being gay)...don't flaunt it

in public..blah blah...I am ashamed of that sentiment. I have a gay daughter and have evolved on the issue...many have. Also as a high school student, I wrote a paper about how Lincoln freeing the slave was behind enemy lines...and should have been done gradually ...blah blah. My Mom and Dad were liberals who marched with King...I have no idea why I wrote this...I kind of had a crush on the sexy teacher, and he had said some similar things...my Mom was so angry when she saw that paper...my Dad was disappointed which was worse. I still remember the shame I felt. Not only did I write a racist paper, I did it to please a man!

[LanternWaste]

76. Use it to both validate and advance a narrative.

" but what can you do..."

Use it to both validate and advance a rather consistent and sectarian narrative. But I do get a kick from the pretense of sincerity...

[melman]

111. Get a kick?

That's nice. You totally missed the point. But that's nice.

[Tipperary]

125. Ha! Excellent response. I wish I could rec your post.

You nailed it.

[progressoid]

37. Which minority? AA or LGBTQ?

[TheDebbieDee]

38. Why is it NOT okay that Joy Reid has EVOLVED

on the issue of Gayness? She was anti-gay, now she's cool with it. What's the problem???

[R B Garr]

39. She was not anti-gay, but was calling out a GOPer,

a privileged white man, who hid being gay while supporting anti-gay politicians. She was calling out his hypocrisy and turning the tables on him personally — not gays.

Bottom line is that this is really because she dares to not worship Bernie, and she is being harassed now.

[TheDebbieDee]

41. Thx for pointing out the troll angle -

I would have missed it, otherwise...

[SMC22307]

45. She flip-flopped on Bernie, too. And Hillary.

The woman stands for nothing. Well, but her career and big, fat Corporate Media paycheck, just like the rest of 'em.

[Demsrule86]

57. I like Joy and know this is all about criticizing Sen. Sanders.

This is so transparent.

[R B Garr]

85. She didnt flip flop on Hillary. Youre just trying to

push that up because you think it negates what she now says about Bernie. She used heavy metaphors referring to Hillary during that period, which are easily understandable. I use them all the time and have to laugh at those who think they are being clever in deliberately misunderstanding them.

Joy was a woman of color calling out a white privileged male.

And LOL c0RpOrAtIoNz. That worn out excuse to bash Democrats is just inane at this point.

[JHan]

51. yup lots of trolling going on.

[Nevernose]

40. She said numerous anti-Hillary things, too

Times change, people change, values change. What was acceptable ten years ago no longer is. Joy recognizes that and has apologized for the nature of her comments and has been a champion of progressive issues since (unless they're Bernie related, but that's a different issue ).

I said more here, but the gist is the same: she's apologized and she's changed her views from a decade ago. It's not like she was calling for gays to be murdered in the streets; she was insensitive. They made an entire popular documentary about Charlie Crist's closeted homophobia for god's sake.

[Arazi]

117. So this means we can finally put to rest that Bernie's a misogynist based on a 1972 college essay

Amiright?

[Raster]

130. Oh no, no, no.... that one will always be dredged up and drug around...

...Oh no. The same rules don't equally apply.

[JHan]

42. You're trying real hard with this one but I get your motivation.

She said some stuff about Bernie and his supporters.

So here you are.

Despite all other explanations, and her apology and the acceptance from Crist - despite Joy firmly being a voice now in support of LGBT rights, here you are.

[Demsrule86]

64. When you read thread like this...I am more and more convinced that Sen. Sanders should not run in 20

in a Democratic Primary period. If he must, let him run as an independent. Clearly some have not put the 16 primary behind them...God we don't need another one.

[JHan]

71. the current double teaming is expected.

and transparent.

[Demsrule86]

75. so transparent. But self-defeating. It doesn't make anyone like Sen. Sanders more.

Also when Greenwald goes after Joy because of her remarks concerning Sen. Sanders...you have to wonder...did Putin order this response? If so, why?

[JHan]

82. There's a term called "Greenwalding" -

where if you disagree with Glenn, normal journalistic standards don't apply to you. Glenn dislikes Joy, because she's been reporting on Russian meddling in the election since summer last year. She never indulged in disseminating uncurated data from stolen emails via wikileaks, never engages in false equivocation, and has criticized Bernie Sanders. So that right there means he will make her an issue, even taking this issue to excoriate her despite her apologies, or Governor Crist's acceptance of her apology or Joy's clarity on these issues in the present day. He will try to invalidate her because she doesn't buy into his agenda so she is an enemy.

And it's not too hard to see the same constellation at work here re Trump. He said during the election, he was focused on Clinton because she was going to win and he wants to hold the powerful accountable. Apparently these standards don't apply to Trump.

He can't quit his libertarian impulses, which is why I find it hilarious leftists follow this clown. You just know he loves Trump because Trump is sticking it to "The elites" and , in his mind, bringing "change". And he loves to argue how Hillary was the preferred choice of "the establishment" on the left and right ( the right - except the GOP, the RNC and conservative media) But since some former Republican Government officials endorsed her she was the "establishment choice" across the board. He hates Hillary so his disingenuous framing of her is justified in his mind.

This is a rough synopsis of GLENN:

1) I am Glenn Greenwald and I am the Truth and the Light. A crusader, a truth teller, if you disagree with me you are evil.

2) I focused on Hillary so much I missed the deeply corrupt financial ties between Trump campaign officials and Russian oligarchs. In any case, I don't care because I think America is the only geopolitical power with imperialist imperatives and impulses. And anyway Russia is ruled by a misunderstood anti-gay autocratic oligarchic regime and did not meddle in the election and hey.. look at that squirrel over there called "deep state".

3) I once worked for the libertarian think tank Cato Institute but I'm now judge and jury of who real leftists are and who aren't. I also hate Democrats and think that the party of Corporate Welfare and limited government is no worse than the party of regulatory oversight and Government service.

4) I hate Chelsea Clinton.

It's not hard to see how he became yet another of Putin's dupes.

[peggysue2]

98. Yes!

LOL--' . . . look at the squirrel over there called 'deep state.'

I think we can safely say that Greenwald is not only anti-Hillary but antiAmerican. His Putin apologies/admiration are over-the-top. Consequently, I stopped reading him, a propaganda overdose. Which, of course, calls into question the whole Snowden affair and how many of us (myself included) bought into Greenwald's take while asking few questions. This was easy to do after the Bush&Co's debacle, a period when truthiness became a thing.

Just another reminder: don't take anything at face value. It's the world we live in now.

[JHan]

113. agreed.

I think it's understandable though.

My major beef with Glenn and others who think like him is that they don't move the conversation forward because his aim is to have a certain amount of power himself - Crusaders are inherently narcissistic - they want to be power brokers. Assange is the same. What they will never do is encourage introspection.

Glenn's obsession with deep state narratives is his way of bringing focus to himself and his anti-statist views. Rarely is the question asked by him, how America pays for the privileges she enjoys - everything is boiled down to a state department or a certain secretary of state or administration. And this dovetails nicely with the cognitive dissonance many Americans suffer from, where there's little reflection over the benefits accrued from being a super power and how this is reflected in energy prices, access to affordable goods and services. Americans consume more than any other group of people on the planet, there are reasons for that made possible by realities I think most are uncomfortable confronting.

As for Snowden, he's no different to Greenwald. I'll always remember his smug comment that he'll have the CIA running around like a headless chicken for a while or words to that effect. Why he's viewed as a hero boggles my mind: He compromised intelligence, his revelations were nothing new - any American who didn't know that interception of telecommunications has been a thing for deacdes has been living under a rock since birth. This has been the case for decades, going far back to the civil rights movement , and sometimes a warrant wasn't even necessary.

Worse yet, in Snowden's case, what he revealed related to eavesdropping of foreign agents or activities connected to foreign countries. As if a government should not engage in such security measures , which is crazy. There was so much outrage, I've yet to see anything that matched it - not even corporations cataloging information on our interests/likes and or dislikes generated as much stupid outrage.

Just another reminder: don't take anything at face value. It's the world we live in now.

Truth. I've often said on this site that nuance is lost , that complexity is lost.

but I now realise that's not the problem. The problem now is that Facts count for nothing. All we've got are memes in this post truth world, and it's all about whether your meme penetrates the noise and dominates.

[Demsrule86]

134. I absolutely agree.

[Demsrule86]

155. Yes...he is a Putin dupe...the interesting thing is if he is in Putin's pocket, and I think he is...

why is he concerned about Sen. Sanders?

[JHan]

160. Senator Sanders has criticized Democrats.

And Glenn hates democrats, and enjoys criticizing democrats.

re Glenn, it's expected to see intercept types and far righters join in criticizing Dems on twitter. And Glenn entertains tucker carlson , one of the biggest conservative hacks on cable, tells you everything you need to know about him.

[Demsrule86]

161. And some like this guy?

I despise him and other whom I believe helped throw the election to Trump with the fire of 100 suns.

[BoneyardDem]

91. 1000% agreed. Can't even imagine the un-healable division a run would cause

but then, Bernie is not in this to help the Dems....so maybe he'll just run. And the Op will be a happy camper having met goals.

[Demsrule86]

156. I don't see how we can survive another GOP win...I really don't.

[Afromania]

52. They can come back when the right has divested from all of their hate laced talking heads.

[stonecutter357]

54. #fakenews.

[Demsrule86]

55. I will discount this because Greenwald is involved and the sin of Ms. Reid is she

criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders.

[samnsara]

58. im just not forwarding any of this

[IADEMO2004]

59. more fratricide

[MrScorpio]

62. I cant imagine what backlash id get for the shit I wrote ten years ago

I’m sure that wingers are behind this story.

[Demsrule86]

65. She is being double teamed.

[yardwork]

67. Yep. This is the old gay vs. African American trick, too.

We've been around this block before. Anything to get Democrats angry with one another.

[LexVegas]

69. By those that care for neither. nt

[Demsrule86]

79. Exactly right +1000

[Amimnoch]

68. Well.. that's another 5 minutes of reading I won't get back.

Pardon me while I move on to a peeeeresident with 15 sexual assault accusers, and a pedophile rapist that's about to win a senate seat in Alabama, and that same Peeeresident endorsing him.

A tax bill that's about to harm the most vulnerable in our country.
A man-child leading us towards a nuclear showdown with North Korea.
the 1st and 2nd most deadly mass shootings in modern history that seems to get almost no coverage at all, and certainly no legislation to help prevent it from happening again.
A Peeresident that's colluded with a hostile foreign government to gain the office.
Daily attacks from our nations leaders on the Free press.
Daily attacks from our nations leaders on minorities.
REAL daily attacks from state leaders, and our nations leaders trying to turn back the clock on REAL gay rights.
Daily attacks from state and national leaders on the reproductive rights of women.
Daily and legislative attacks from our congress on labor (organized and in general) while shoring up the powers of corporations over their workers.

How long should I make this list? There's plenty more.

I've got better things to do with my outrage these days. But for those who have outrage to spare, have at it.

[yardwork]

72. There you go being reasonable.

[obamanut2012]

74. It is not a "crackpot conspiracy theory"

And, it is interesting to see how she is being attacked by the trolls over this.

Y'all know I am gay. I also live in SOFL.

[Demsrule86]

80. She said something "mean" in their eyes about Sen. Sanders.

And of course, they rush to his defense.

[BoneyardDem]

88. Breathlessly posting anti Joy articles as fast as they come out...ignores Trump

Wondering, does OP hold and require that EVERYONE must admit to the same standards they had 10+years ago?

Gives self a rec, for good measure

Glad not everyone is like that and people are permitted to evolve.

[Blue_true]

116. Joy said something mean about Bernie.

The Bernie Zombies are coming after her.

[BoneyardDem]

119. painfully obvious..and incredibly transparent

The timing is interesting too. On another post, there is a discussion that this may be a trumpian type of misdirection.

Everyone looking at the tweets and bringing up 10 year old shit already apologized for, meanwhile Jane embroiled in directing a VERY large portion of the now Defunct Burlington University funds to her own daughter to run a wood shop, that same daughter now running for Mayor of the same town where Bernie was once Mayor. All tidy with a nice new bow on top.

[forgotmylogin]

96. This doesn't diminish my love for Joy Reid.

[saidsimplesimon]

106. This hurts me.

If true, I must abandon my love of her brilliant reporting. No twitter, no facebook, no google, what do I know?

[Cary]

109. If true, then maybe she has evolved?

I know I have. It's kind of what we need to do, as human beings.

[maxsolomon]

107. Nom nom nom

it sure is delicious eating our own.

[makokun]

115. This thread proves the idea...

This thread lends credence to the idea that the Left and Right are not really ideological groups, they are just political tribes who's values are relative. Neither holds their standards without a lot of flexibility, and both readily forgive violations of those standards for their soldiers in the context of the greater political fight. Kind of hurts the idea that one side actually has the moral high ground, and a meaningful philosophy that isn't just merely convenient.

[Blue_true]

118. BOOMMM, right on. nt

[Sienna86]

128. You are so right. nt

[yardwork]

144. Tell that to the children who just lost their health insurance.

[makokun]

166. Yeah... who needs beliefs anyway as long as we get stuff...

[muriel_volestrangler]

167. dismissing affordable health insurance for children as "getting stuff"

is profoundly missing the point of society. "Getting stuff" is consumerism; children staying healthy even if their parents aren't loaded is a basic part of thinking about other people.

Wanting to help children is a belief, whether or not you personally hold it.

[makokun]

168. So basically the ends justify the means

No big deal what Joy Reid said b/c there are children who don't have insurance.

Not a non sequitur at all...

[muriel_volestrangler]

171. No, it's nothing like that at all.

You think the only moral aspect to politics is about sexual harrassment, or personal rights (since all you talk about is Moor, Franken and Reid). You are missing the fundamental point about society - they we can, and should, help each other, and that's a moral choice. So you're wrong to say that Democrats don't have the moral high ground. They are not perfect, but when someone (who didn't say "no big deal" ) brings up an example in which the Democrats clearly do have the moral high ground, you dismiss it as "getting stuff".

The problem here was your slur of Democrats with "kind of hurts the idea that one side actually has the moral high ground, and a meaningful philosophy that isn't just merely convenient". No, keeping children healthy is not "merely convenient". It is a goal, and a moral one. Helping other people is indeed a "meaningful philosophy". We're not Randian objectivists on DU.

[makokun]

172. You're conflating health insurance here with the topic of this thread

And you are doing it in the exact manner I'm describing. You are in essence saying the topic of the thread, anti-gay rhetoric, can be ignored because of selective prioritization of something completely unrelated. That's the definition of a non sequitur, and it jettisons what is supposed to be a core philosophical principle for the sake of convenience.

Children's health insurance is completely not related to anti-gay rhetoric, Joy Reid is completely not related to children's health insurance, and using children's health insurance as a justification for glossing over Joy Reid's comments is antithetical to core philosophical principle.

"Hi, I'm a hypocrite, but its OK b/c the other side are bigger hypocrites."
This is pure tribalism. People can, and should do better than this.

How about this? You continue to fight for health insurance and anything else, and you hold people accountable for their words and actions, regardless if you like them or not. Pretty simple really.

[muriel_volestrangler]

175. No, I'm not saying it can be ignored.

I'm saying that when you said "kind of hurts the idea that one side actually has the moral high ground, and a meaningful philosophy that isn't just merely convenient", you were talking bullshit, trying to say Democrats do not have better morals than Republicans. That was a slur, that you ought to have been ashamed of. Helping people, especially those little able to help themselves, is the core Democratic philosophical principle. To dismiss it as "getting stuff" sounds suspiciously like Ayn Rand.

"Hi, I'm a hypocrite, but its OK b/c the other side are bigger hypocrites" is not tribalism. It's a recognition of reality: no one is perfect, but we (meaning Democratic supporters, whether or not you are one) really are better than Republicans.

[makokun]

176. Its not bullshit

Living up to your ideals is something we should all strive for. Holding people accountable is something we should all do, including holding ourselves accountable. Its not a slur to say we should practice what we preach. And by giving people a pass on something that is anathema basically says those principles are relative.

One can't absolve sexual assault b/c the assaulter is an ally. That's cravenly wrong, end of story. While I don't think that words rise to the same level as assault, Joy Reid should be held accountable.

It is not a "mistake" to do what she did. She said what was in her heart. Saying that its no longer in her heart anymore is meaningless, the damage was done. Move on and replace her with someone more deserving.

Anything less is not a show of compassion, its showing people that values are being held in name only.

Misdirecting to a "for the children" argument is fatuous. And pointing that out ought to have nothing to do with Ayn Rand, but I haven't read Ayn Rand so I guess I can't say for certain...

[muriel_volestrangler]

178. You said providing health insurance for children is "getting stuff"

The problem is that you obviously don't regard helping others as an ideal, or as moral.

[uponit7771]

150. Bullshit, she apologized he accepted fuck that "they're the same" shit

[makokun]

165. You are missing the point

It has nothing to do with Charlie Crist accepting an apology and everything to do with the blind eye everyone else is willing to give her b/c she's useful to their ends.

This same behavior is apparent all over the place. From Moore to Franken. Most people don't care what their teammates are guilty of just what their opponents are guilty of.

Only "the Cause" seems to matter. Tribalism as political philosophy...not very deep...

[delisen]

132. Is this our Red Guard period. Must we denounce everyone!

If so, lets have an orgy of denunciations for writers texts that which fall short of our modern standards.

Comrade, let's drag them into the public square and humiliate them (lest we ourselves get dragged there instead).

It does not matter what they wrote-what matters is our passion and dedication to the revolution.

....and while we are at it let's break into some museums and liberate those public stocks the New Englanders used to lock women into (the wooden ones with the holes for head and hands) for being public scolds.

These public denunciations may be the progressive version of the Revival Meeting. Guess. this sort of things is baked into our genes.

Now pardon me while I get back to the real work of saving democracy.

[moda253]

139. So the point of all of this is to...

So the point of all of this isn't to show that people can grow over the course of a decade or more. That it doesn't matter that what the did wasn't illegal. The point is that if you can go back far enough to find something that defines them as anything but completely perfect then we must carve them out of our group and shun them.

That's the exercise that is being thrust upon us and we are adhering to it just like the political operatives thought we would.

They do this because they know full well that we will damn ourselves for it, which we don't have any power to ensure that they hold themselves accountable, and we know damn well they will excuse their own behavior so in the end we are left eating our own and making their path to absolute power even easier.

[Sugarcoated]

146. I love her.

She's a wonderful asset to the Democratic Party and for good. My son is gay, neither he, nor I, hold this against her. Her sincere apologies aside, it's being used to divide Democrats. We're smart. We don't fall for it.

[uponit7771]

151. +1

[vi5]

153. Funny how it's "distracting" and "unproductive"

to criticize "our side" and to "eat our own", or it's because of "Putin" when it's going after Joy Reid, but when it's any post related to her attacking people on our side well....I guess that's fair game and extremely productive.

Who says Republicans have a monopoly on moral relativism and hypocrisy?

[makokun]

169. This

It is so cravenly self serving.

[erpowers]

157. I Do Not See The Problem

I do not see a problem with what she is said to have written. Okay, she assumed he was a gay politician and made comments referencing his supposed sexual orientation. I do not see what she wrote as being bigoted.

[ismnotwasm]

159. Are you fucking kidding me? Is this the young conservative Calab Ecarma?

Posted HERE? Joy has rightfully apologized—not that it’s stopped dudebros who couldn’t give 2 shits about Gay rights from attacking her, but really, why is this person being used a news resource? The dude supports the “March for Life” and other assorted RW douchebaggery

Fucking gross man.

[Paladin]

170. Well, golly gee. Guess we better flush another liberal spokesman down the toilet.

I mean, that's what Steve Bannon and Reichminister Gorka would want us to do, correct?

[makokun]

173. Are there not dozens of other people who could fill the void?

Surely the remaining talent pool isn't that shallow.

Replace with someone who didn't use anti-gay slurs and move on.

[Paladin]

177. Get back to me after Roy Moore isn't a US senator, and trump isn't president.

Then we can talk about our side having to repeatedly "fill the void." I'm getting tired of doing the alt-right's bidding.

[Joe941]

180. Fake news.