That's awful...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where the hell was the party? The deep south?

Oops... I commented before I read the punchline.

Absolutely terrible. Absolutely too common. I'm sorry you (and so many of us) have to deal with that kind of thing so often. Thank you for writing beautifully about it.

I was at a gathering in the UWS a few month ago where the hostess claimed that she never met a Republican growing up. I asked where she was from and she said Queens. Now, I am from Queens so it really made me really question whether this woman ever talked to anyone outside a close circle of like-minded friends. This mindset is all too common among liberal Democrats and Candace's story seems all too typical.

Absolutely fabulous post.

A similar thing happened to us.

A classical music ensemble asked Mrs. Jake to be on their board because we gave them some startup money-until the Director learned she was a Republican. He withdrew the invitation because the musicians would not allow Republicans on the board. This attitude doomed them to failure because:

1. They needed practical advice, and Democrats don't have a practical thought in their heads.

2. Republicans give money. Democrats only take it.

Sure enough, 5 months later the ensemble had to disband.

Sorry you had to endure that.

The only folks that need to be busting chairs over each other, so to speak, are fans of rival sports teams.

Ulitmately, your encounter merely highlights why I find politics to be more or less icky.

It comes down to this:

Based upon their opinions of social policy and foreign affairs, I think most Democrats are wrong.

Democrats, however, based on the opinions I have about those topcis, are convinced that I am evil.

Foolishly, we Republicans approach the situation rationally.

Although I'd pick Economics and Foreign Affairs instead of Social issues, you are totally right about 'wrong' vs 'evil'. You can usually split a crowd easily based only on their reaction to the concept of 'making sense'.

I am glad this comment train did not become what it could have been, although I should be clear that I do not in any way mean to imply that this is a Democrat syndrome. It's not. And while for me, as a relatively conservative person who has always been in a liberal environment, the experience in the twist is nothing new, I hope that the point should not be lost: I could have flipped all those terms, or simply kept the original story (also close to true experiences I've been in/witnessed).

In other words, intolerance is not a Democrat disease, it's a human one. It just happens to be particularly hypocritical in their case.

You'd have received the same reception on this side of the river. Had you added 'pro-life Christian' to your resume, you'd never have made it out alive. This closed-minded provincialism is made worse because the most cherished belief of people in this area is that it is their tolerance and broad-mindedeness that demonstrates their superiority to the rest of the country. This is the most sacred of cows, which you threaten at your peril.

Nice W.C. you reiterated the point of Candace's post with your view of the South.

There are a few aspects to this post that I can't agree with.

The first is that I do not see how being a Republican and being gay can be compared. The first is a political choice. The second is not.

Secondly, the anecdote is told in the third person. We are led to believe that everyone at the party liked the homosexual guest. But it turns out that the narrator is actually the gay protagonist. If this is the case, how can she know that everyone liked her at first? Perhaps they were only being polite and her outing was merely the catalyst for something which had been building from the start.

Thirdly, the gay anecdote does not entirely match the actual situation. A homosexual at a party full of heterosexuals is hardly a parallel for a Republican at a party full of DNC employees. Perhaps a better analogy would have been a homosexual at a party thrown by members of Focus on the Family.

Yes, there is an awful lot of intolerance, ignorance, and hate in the world. But I'm not sure that this is quite the best example of it. In fact, I rather think that Candace's assumption that the partygoers regarded homosexuals (ie Republicans) as "responsible for all the world's evils and couldn't possibly be human" is the same way many Democrats assume they are viewed by Republicans.

Pots and kettles. Heat and kitchens.

Dem sites continually issue the most vile assessments of how they and their ideas are treated by Republicans. Usually the remarks are along the lines of 'stifling dissent'. But most dissent is stifled in left-leaning chatrooms, and there's no namecalling quite like that in the Daily Kos. No, Karol's example was adequate, and the assumption that this incident took place in the "Deep South" does indeed advance her point. Saul Steinberg's famous drawing of Manhattan myopia, while amusing, also has its darker aspects. (And as I said previously it's not neatly bound by Manhhattan's borders.) Most folks carry some sort of narrow worldview and woe to those who threaten it. Welcome to political reality.

Englishman! Exactly! Both the pot and kettle are black! That's exactly the point. And everything we do is a choice, but I think most people hold their political beliefs close enough that they are part of who they are. I would hope that someone's "outing" as gay/bisexual/Democrat/Republican/Christian/Muslim/from Tennessee does not, for everyone, trump their other characteristics.

As for whether or not people like me, let's give one another the benefit of the doubt and also not assume stupidity. Most people are aware enough to notice when a dynamic changes, and when people shift from offering you drinks and asking about your life to threatening to throw you off the balcony, something has changed -- or, more appropriately, something has surfaced.

I would not "change" my beliefs to make someone like me any more than the typical homosexual would "change" his/her sexuality to make friends, although there are people in all groups who do it.

The bottom line is that there are people who have beliefs and values and are capable of not hating those who disagree or live differently, and there are narrowminded people who are not. And the ones who go to work in politics, who devote their lives to promoting intolerant figures like Howard Dean, who will say to a Republican's face that they are manifestly evil, are the latter. And they are not the minority.

But surely the narrow-minded people you speak of are just as abundant on both sides.

I never claimed otherwise. Made a point of it, in fact.

NY dems are bold and aggressive, and republicans are reserved and passive(i know these are generalities). This is a dem town and they feel empowered. If this were Texas, it would be the republicans who would be bold and aggressive. The problem is still that the left has a poor outlook on reality and how it affects them, and how they can affect it. The left is very "conceptual" and i think that is a defensive approch to life. However reality is all powerful and "concepts" as interseting as they may be, can not stand up to reality, so the left becomes very angry because(these are my personal estimations, please dont make this a mathematical argument)i believe that the left feels their conceptual view of the world is equal to a practical view of the world, but i believe the world is 80% reality and 20% concept. We need the concepts to advance but just like a corporation, it may need R&D to advance, but the R&D department cant run the show. The left represents a very important 20% of the equation, but until the world understands that it is still just 20%, we will have too many 20%ers gumming up the works.

Candy, I think you've just given me a great idea for a story! Thanks.

Candy, if you're at all interested, I turned my thoughts into this post.

EINY, I like you.

Well done Candace! Beautiful exposure of the double standards propagated among the liberal elitists. Bravo!