Okay, first go and look at this New York Times profile of John Roberts, making sure to look at the accompanying slideshow of photos. Note the plaid pants.
Did you get the impression that the Times is trying to imply that Roberts is gay? I didn’t, either. But check out what right-wing alpha-blog Powerline says:
They Were Already Beneath Contempt…
…but now some Democrats have sunk lower. They are hinting that John Roberts is a homosexual because he was once photographed–more than thirty years ago–wearing plaid pants. You think I’m making this up?
Well, I kinda think they are making it up, in a groupthink/urban myth sort of way.
Ann Althouse, who is usually much more sane than this, also sees homo-baiting in the Times‘ portrait of Roberts:
I do think the NYT piece was subtly constructed to plant this idea. Just look at the series of photographs they chose: young John in plaid pants, young John with his boys’ school pals, young John in a wrestling suit with his fellow wrestlers, John with footballers, and — the final pic — John smiling in an all-male wedding photograph.
I’m sorry, but which of these things does Ann think implies gayness? Plaid pants? Having boyhood pals? Wrestling and football? Being a groomsman? Thank goodness Ann is (I think) straight, because her gaydar sucks.
As I said in the comments of Ann’s follow-up post (in which she backed away from her initial claim a bit), there’s no point in paying any attention to conservative critiques of the Times anymore. No matter how innocent the Times is, conservatives (and even some conservative-friendly moderates like Ann) will find malice in what the Times does – no matter how ludicrous they’re being, and no matter how little evidence they have. The Times could print “Bush nominee is a saint” and someone like Ann would find malice hidden in it. (“Saints? A lot of the saints were killed! I do think the Times headline was subtly constructed to suggest that Roberts should be murdered.”)
This wacky thinking appears to be widespread in the righty blogsphere; check out how many trackbacks this post on Reasoned Audacity got. (Link via Unfogged). Unbelievably, they believe this crap.
Marty Schwimmer has a good post on this – “Anatomy of a Rumour” – showing how Wonkette’s joke became serious claims that liberals think that someone who wears plaid pants is gay.
P.S. I did find one line in the Times piece odd – they noted that, in his high school yearbook, Roberts is credited with playing Peppermint Patty in the school production of “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown.” What’s even odder than the cross-gender casting, is that the character of Peppermint Patty doesn’t even appear in “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown.” Maybe this was an in-joke between the yearbook editors and Roberts? [Edited to add – then again, maybe she did appear. See Robert’s correction in the comments.]
P.P.S. (added later): It’s pretty funny to compare Powerline’s “no low too low for them” view of Democrats with how Democrats view themselves.
Well, Peppermint Patty appears in this 1976 list of credits for “You’re A Good Man, Charlie Brown”. So either you’re crazy or these people are. (Or there are multiple versions of the production, or lots of people liked Peppermint Patty and so they put her in their show, Schulz be damned.) There are almost 200,000 Google hits for “Peppermint Patty You’re A Good Man Charlie Brown” and a lot of ’em seem to be similar kinds of citations.
Not to exhaustively research a minor point, or anything.
I also note that Ann says that she is talking about an impression she got from the piece, not that it’s clear or obvious or anything. Maybe she just has an oversensitivity to “outing”. We get impressions from media articles all the time; sometimes the impression is just nuts, other times its exactly what the writer was trying to get across. It’s an iffy business sometimes.
I can certainly see why you’re unimpressed with the certitude that a lot of the right blogosphere is bringing to this contretemps, but I don’t see why you’re shocked, SHOCKED to find gambling at Rick’s. It’s not like the Times doesn’t have a deserved reputation for making its biases subtly clear. You’ve doubtless seen the old joke that the world comes to an end and there are various mock newspaper headlines given; the Times’ head is “World Ends; Poor, Minorities Most Affected”.
And there’s nothing wrong with that, but then when something comes along that plays into those biases, well, that’s what people are going to assume.
My God, Roberts is a *lesbian*!
I have both the original Broadway cast album, and the recent Broadway revival cast album – and in neither album does Peppermint Patty appear. So if she’s a character in those productions, she must not be a singing character, which seems unlikely.
Furthermore, you’re mistaken to think that Peppermint Patty appeared in the program you linked to, Robert. This is a mistake that insufficiently Peanuts-literate people make all the time – the character of “Patty” is not the same as the character “Peppermint Patty.” Check out this Peanuts character listing, which correctly lists Patty and Peppermint Patty as separate characters.
It is true, however, that some community productions add in Peppermint Patty, Violet, and some other characters to increase the number of parts (see this, for example). (The recent Broadway revival removed Patty and added Sally.) Maybe that’s what Roberts’ high school did.
And Google returns only about 2000 results for “Peppermint Patty” and “You’re a Good Man Charlie Brown,” not 200,000 – I think you must not have bounded your search properly. (Nit pick, nit pick, I know….)
I have both the original Broadway cast album, and the recent Broadway revival cast album…
And we’re discussing Roberts’ sexuality?
But seriously, I bet the Times made the same mistake I did – Patty = Peppermint Patty.
If people wanted to make hay of Roberts’ sexuality with innuendo, they’d focus on how odd it is for someone of his conservative Catholic background and embracement of core republican values to have waited until 1996 to get married (I made a bit of a joke somewhere b/c it did catch me off guard – even for a boomer). The same can be said for his wife, despite being a feminist, she too is well known for her core dedication to her religion and she was either 41 or 42 when they married at which time they began a short, frantic & unsuccessful attempt at getting pregnant (something I’m sure Santorum is whispering is her punishment for waiting to settle down and then keeping her high powered job while the kids are so young) before adopting.
I can guarantee you if he were a democrat’s nominee, Rove (the king of sexual slander & innuendo) would be using the above with the Peppermint Patty casting as clear “proof” of Roberts’ homosexuality and Harvard elitist liberal tendencies.
Is the right so homophobic that they are seeing homosexuality (or homosexual conspiracies) everywhere?
Why would this even come up, otherwise?
I suspect that this all ties in on a cultural level to the recent posts here re: candidates and the big-dick syndrome. That is, the current culture of hyped-up machismo is making lots of people see all kinds of things that probably aren’t even there. I can’t quite articulate the connection, but it’s been talked about before– the idea that hyper-masculinity and homophobia are related traits.
But what do I know. My gaydar’s never been worth a damn, either. :/
I gotta be honest with you, I can’t see any self respecting gay man wearing plaid pants – except, maybe, on the golf course (which is even a stretch) or as some sort of costume.
I’m with Cranky, plaid pants aren’t even part of the gay stereotype. They’re more of a “rich white golf-playing guy/Scotsman” thing.
Now, if the Times published a picture of him wearing assless-chaps, then I could see where people would pick up a gay-vibe from him. Hmmm, I wonder if such a picture exists…
What ol cranky said. Since when are plaid pants gay? Jeez, these wingers.
So now good fashion sense and bad fashion sense are both “gay things”? Wow.
If anything makes me wonder if John Roberts is gay it’s that he made it to his mid-40’s without getting married, despite being successful and good looking. Did he have girlfriends before that? Is there something wrong with his libido?
Not to interrupt the plaid-pants discussion and all, but…
So I read the link to billmon, (like the dogged masochist I am) and there’s the inevitable entreaty to just let Roberts pass in hopes of getting the Democrats some brownie points for 2006. Only I still fail to understand how endorsing policies or nominees beloved of the same Right-wing hit squads that billmon doesn’t like is supposed to get Democrats elected. After a cool-headed explanation as to why the reasonable approach is hopeless, billmon insists on this same reasonable approach in regards to Roberts.
I remain unconvinced that peaceably rubber-stamping Right-wing judges is going to get the Democrats less abuse. It hasn’t so far. Just as repeatedly showing itself as no more “liberal” or “activist” than a dented can of generic pasta in sauce has in any way stopped the Far Right from constantly tagging of the *Times* with the “liberal media” label. The *Times* routinely runs worshipful articles about capitalist icons and was first in line to wave the flag for Gulf War 2. Its Sunday Ed has enough corporate-lovin’ adverts to line the Oregon Humane Society’s catboxes for the entire subsequent week. This is “liberal” or “activist” ?
What does a paper have to do to NOT be “liberal” in the eyes of the Far Right ? Give Jesus his own daily advice column ? Let Johnny Hart take over the Arts section ? Get photographs of Thomas Friedman publicly licking Reverend Moon’s/Rupert Murdoch’s wing-tips on the front page ? Have a cut-out burn-it-yourself effigy of Ellie Smeal in the Editorial section ?
Get real.
I also remain unconvinced that failing to distinguish yourself from your supposed opposition except by some chickenshit notion of “niceness” is gonna’ get you more votes than it ever has.
billmon’s column goes out of its way to demonstrate –more or less– the futility of this strategy, and then ignores what he/she just pointed out in pursuit of a future strategy that hasn’t worked worth diddly-shit for Democrats in at least the last twenty-five years ! This Armageddon billmon points toward is largely in place BECAUSE Democrats have mostly spent those years peaceably waving through the Scalias and Reinquists.
I suggest a new slogan: Liberals. Apocolypse Now. (Or Maybe In Another Couple of Years. Yes, That Seems Reasonable.)
Well, maybe some other disaffected straggler can suggest something snappier and more stirring. I’m tired. :/
I favor:
Democrats: We want hell on earth, too. We just want it 3 months later than those nasty, horrible Republicans.
cross-gender … all-boys school …
Back to plaid pants – since when do plaid pants=gay? Doesn’t the stereotyped gay have fashion sense?
Also, that looks like a school uniform. Catholic school in the 60s, plaid pants.
Also, who says this guy is good looking? Ick.
“This Armageddon billmon points toward is largely in place BECAUSE Democrats have mostly spent those years peaceably waving through the Scalias and Reinquists.”
————————————–
oh yes, indeed. That’s why I have a hard time with the alarmist tactics now.
If you build it, he will come. If you help put right-wing justices on the court with a smile, then will come that one who seals the fate of women(which really shouldn’t be a bother, b/c you only need them one day every two years) If we as a gender are indeed doomed(and if we are, it’s more in the gradually heating up the frog in the water kind of way), the party that purports to save our rights helped condemn them.
Plaid is fine. To each his or her own.
I don’t care if someone was snarky and made a comment about Roberts being “gay” – I found absolutely nothing in the article and photos that even implied that.
Perhaps the Rethugs are transferring their homophobia onto him by saying the liberals are “outing” him? After all, Roberts (football and wrestling aside – he likely wouldn’t have played at a larger school) has made his way with brains, not brawn or Dubya-style chutzpah-over-brains. Not macho at all. And the conservative women he would have likely been attracted to would have preferred Dubya-clones over him, which would have led to his having to find a mate later in life.
Now let’s get back to telling people how big a traitor Karl Rove is. He’s just as bad as Aldrich Ames, only Ames sold America out for money – Karl Rove did it just for spite.
radfem wrote:
I really dig Black Watch plaid. My life’s ambition is to own at least one of every article of clothing in Black Watch.
Which, given my ethnic origins, goes to show that there’s probably no such thing as racial memory. :D
My husband is a very good judge of character and after seeing Roberts on tv he replied, “this guy has the bone in the butt smile. ” The more we learned about him the more it seemed to substantiate his opinion: married at 40, kids who were adopted, and a wife who you wouldn’t call attractive. He said that a man who he thinks is fairly good-looking(I don’t agree with that) and doing rather well economically would have women all over him. It’s not the stupid pants that makes me agree with my husband, it’s the last picture in the Time magazine article that made me finally agree . If that’s not a gay couple on a date… It’s fine with me if he is gay, I just hate the hypocracy.
FIRE KARL!
Peppermint Patty is SO in the chorus of both versions of the musical….total flamer.
:p
If Roberts is indeed gay we are in real trouble. Some of the biggest monsters of the past 50 years were closeted gay guys — Roy Cohn, J. Edgar Hoover, etc. As a gay man myself, I think the most compelling evidence is Roberts’ oh-so-witty remarks in his memos from the Reagan era. His comments about Michael Jackson are really a matter of aesthetics (very gay impulse that) — and betray too much revulsion. A closeted justice of the bitchy-queen variety is a perfect storm for a harshly conservative agenda.