The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Fox News Closet Case (Who’s Not Fooling Anybody) Declares GOP Opponents of Gay Marriage ‘On the Wrong Side of History’

Posted on | May 9, 2012 | 43 Comments

How many “blind” items in the tabloids have we seen and knew they were talking about precious (formerly) pretty boy Shep, huh?

Fox News anchor Shep Smith made his own news today when he said President Obama was “now in the 21st century” after his support for same-sex marriage. Minutes later, in a conversation with colleague Bret Baier, he added:
“What I’m most curious about is whether it’s your belief that — in this time of rising debts, and medical issues, and all the rest — if Republicans would go out on a limb and try to make this a campaign issue while sitting very firmly, without much issue, on the wrong side of history on it.”

Spare us your sermons, you ridiculous phony. Shep once tried to run over a woman who was blocking a parking space he wanted.

Eight million dollars a year they pay that drama queen. As for his “wrong side of history” claim, let’s quote Professor Jeffrey Bell:

Regardless of what the consultants think, the gulf between the American people and what the Democratic party is likely to write into its platform this September in Charlotte is rendering the issue of gay marriage unavoidable this November. . . . partisan polarization of the marriage issue should be far from a source of comfort for Team Obama and its strategists.

Good-bye, Hope. Hello, old-fashioned All-American Hate.


43 Responses to “Fox News Closet Case (Who’s Not Fooling Anybody) Declares GOP Opponents of Gay Marriage ‘On the Wrong Side of History’”

  1. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 9th, 2012 @ 10:27 pm

    Gawker calls BS on Obama’s coming out of the closet on gay marriage…

    A profile in courage this is not!  

    And leave Shep alone!  He loves his mother! 

  2. ThePaganTemple
    May 9th, 2012 @ 11:00 pm

    While everybody else on Fox was talking about how badly Obama has been doing in the polls, Shepherd Smith was touting a poll that claimed Obama was rising and doing well, and announced it at the top of his program. He’s definitely a liberal. And it’s also pretty clear he’s gay. Few closets are big enough to hold that much faggotry. If Fox sent him to cover the next Folsom Street Fair they might never see him again.

  3. Taxpayer1234
    May 9th, 2012 @ 11:12 pm


  4. Dai Alanye
    May 9th, 2012 @ 11:12 pm

    It’s long been obvious Shep was no conservative, but the non-straight aspect is a surprise, though only a small one.

  5. Edward Moran
    May 9th, 2012 @ 11:13 pm

    Plenty of rumors on interwebs, apparently.  Shep probably is a Hershey Highway Patrolman.  NTTIAWWT.

  6. Garym
    May 9th, 2012 @ 11:38 pm

    This is a reason to watch Fox News:

    I don’t watch a dope like Smith, who will call the majority of people who watch Fox raaaaacists and gaaaaaycists. He is a typical progressive, if you don’t agree with him then you’re an _________ (insert name here) and on the wrong side of history.

  7. geoffmartin7777
    May 10th, 2012 @ 12:25 am

    You don’t seem to like gay people very much. As in not at all.

  8. ThePaganTemple
    May 10th, 2012 @ 12:38 am

     There’s an old saying-“If you don’t like yourself, not many other people will like you either.”

  9. Adobe_Walls
    May 10th, 2012 @ 12:41 am

    The vapid hair crowd ain’t too popular either.

  10. Adjoran
    May 10th, 2012 @ 12:52 am

    Shep being gay doesn’t bother or affect me a bit.  Shep being a biased and narcissistic moron bothers me enough I never watch him.  Sometimes I don’t hit the remote before his 7 pm show comes on, I heard him repeatedly claiming Zimmerman was guilty of something.  The guy’s an idiot, I’m sure Ailes knows it but his ratings are decent and if fired he would surely trash the network.

  11. Garym
    May 10th, 2012 @ 12:53 am

    Lighten up. Stop and laugh at yourself once in a while.

  12. Garym
    May 10th, 2012 @ 1:01 am

    Reminds me of the Fort Hood murders, when Shep was basically calling all of his viewers raaaaacists, for email and tweeting him asking him to call it what it was: sudden jihad syndrome. Shep wanted to brush it off as just a mass murder.

  13. ThePaganTemple
    May 10th, 2012 @ 1:05 am

    Shep being gay doesn’t bother or affect me a bit.  Shep being a biased and narcissistic moron

    Is directly related to him being gay.

  14. Thomas L. Knapp
    May 10th, 2012 @ 2:06 am

    It’s not about being on the right side of history, it’s about being on the right side of the electoral math — and Obama is.

    It’s true that in some swing states, there’s still an anti-family/anti-marriage/anti-freedom majority.

    But all but a statistically insignificant sliver of that majority was already unavailable to Obama regardless of what he said or did on the issue. If had come down off the fence firmly on the anti-family/anti-marriage/anti-freedom side of the issue, right on top of Mitt Romney’s head, it wouldn’t have gained him any votes, because the GOP already has those votes cornered.

    Obama energized/motivated a few voters who already supported him but support him more now that he’s openly pro-family / pro-marriage / pro-freedom.

    He immunized himself against losing a few voters whose support for him was lukewarm and who might have considered defecting to the pro-family / pro-marriage / pro-freedom Libertarian candidate had he not climbed down off the fence.

    And he might even pick up a few voters who would otherwise go Republican, but really, really, really had a problem with that party’s anti-family / anti-marriage / anti-freedom candidate/position.

  15. ThePaganTemple
    May 10th, 2012 @ 2:28 am

     Obama surprised nobody with his “shocking” announcement, and as for energizing his base, I guess so, so long as they can appreciate his nuanced, new-found states rights position on gay marriage.

    I don’t know what kind of polls are asking these questions, though I have a feeling they’re worded in such a way as to intimidate respondents into giving some semblance of the answer they’re wanting to get. It does seems to be at odds with the historical record that points out that gay marriage proposals have been soundly rejected in every state where they’ve been put before the voter.

    And that’s including California.

    If history is written by the victor, I would suggest its not the anti-gay marriage crowd who are on the wrong side of it.

  16. elaine
    May 10th, 2012 @ 3:07 am

     It’s funny how supposedly the majority of Americans support gay marriage, according to pollsters like Gallup; yet in the one poll that matters — the voting booth — Americans overwhelmingly vote to ban gay marriage.  Even in very liberal states, like California.

    The alleged vast support of the majority for gay marriage is just that… alleged.

  17. Rick
    May 10th, 2012 @ 3:34 am

    Thirty (30!) states have banned homosexual marriage. I’ll take that as evidence of public opnion on the matter.

  18. Rick
    May 10th, 2012 @ 3:39 am

    Thomas, how many times has homosexual marriage been weighed by a public referendum and the pro-homosexual side won? I’ll give you a hint: It is a number less than 1 and you can’t divide another number by it.

  19. A Simple Explanation – Why Our Political Class Doesn’t Understand The Constitution…Or Us | The Rio Norte Line
    May 10th, 2012 @ 6:18 am

    […] will starve to death. Brains are that way, too. Years of conditioning to accept small bits of that dapper dandy, good old Shep Smith on Fox, Kim Kardashian and Jon Stewart’s Daily Show prevents the brain from being able to […]

  20. Bob Belvedere
    May 10th, 2012 @ 7:37 am

    When he became the only person at Fox not covered by the gossip columns, you knew something was going on.

  21. Bob Belvedere
    May 10th, 2012 @ 7:38 am

    ‘Stupid’ being the operative word.

  22. Bob Belvedere
    May 10th, 2012 @ 7:38 am

    The last third of you sentence is what is written on the walls at the bath houses.

  23. Bob Belvedere
    May 10th, 2012 @ 7:40 am


  24. SDN
    May 10th, 2012 @ 8:00 am

    Just another case of Romney and Obama holding the same position.


    “Watch to the last seconds of the clip and you’ll hear Romney say, almost offhandedly, that gay marriage and marijuana are state issues. Is that really his official position? Didn’t he sign a pledge supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment?”

    If you check that pledge, his signature will be gone, because an Etch-A-Sketch won’t hold ink.

    Romney 2012: As dishonest as Barack, but without the icky melanin!

  25. Shep Smith – So Sweet of You… | ZION'S TRUMPET
    May 10th, 2012 @ 8:23 am

    […] Fox News Closet Case (Who’s Not Fooling Anybody) Declares GOP Opponents of Gay Marriage ‘On the … […]

  26. Thomas L. Knapp
    May 10th, 2012 @ 9:33 am

    Rick, et al,

    Swing/battleground state math is about which votes are available to whom, and who gets most of those votes out.

    Among anti-family voters — people who support marriage apartheid and consider it a major issue — Obama’s support wouldn’t fill a thimble anyway. It’s true that he won’t get their votes by coming down on the pro-family side, but he wasn’t getting their votes by being on the fence, either, and if he had come down on the anti-family side they’d never have believed him.

    So, Obama didn’t lose a single vote by doing the right thing. 

    He did, however, give pro-family voters — people who oppose marriage apartheid and consider it a major issue — a reason to go vote in November instead of staying home and watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy reruns, and to vote for him rather than for a third party pro-family candidate like Gary Johnson.

    The whole thing probably won’t move the arrow more than a percentage point, but in “battleground” states a percentage point can make the difference.

  27. ThePaganTemple
    May 10th, 2012 @ 12:04 pm

     Right, Thomas. Obama has just given social conservatives another reason to not sit this election out, or better yet, another reason to hold their noses and vote for Mittl Romney instead of a third party such as the Constitution Party. That right there might well be where that one percent swing comes in at. Or two, or three, or four percent.

  28. ThePaganTemple
    May 10th, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

     And without the icky communist proclivities.

  29. Tennwriter
    May 10th, 2012 @ 12:20 pm

    I understand Thomas’  arguement (although I wish he would stop planting assumptions and or name-calling). but Pagan Temple is probably right here.

    Those who represent the Civilization is a Nice Concept and We Should Keep It will be more likely to vote for Romney instead of staying home to bbq hamburgers, and help Johnny and Jill and Jessie with their homework.

  30. Thomas L. Knapp
    May 10th, 2012 @ 12:28 pm


    My opinion — and it is just an opinion — is that the effect you speak of will be statistically insignificant even within the context of the sub-1% vote margins we’re talking about.

    The reason for that is that social conservatives ALWAYS talk themselves into not sitting it out, and they NEVER abandon the GOP in significant numbers.

    Even in 2008, when socons had themselves convinced pre-nomination that John McCain was the second coming of Gus Hall, and when Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate, and when a well-known conservative ran as the Libertarian Party’s nominee, the CP candidate came it at just under 200k votes nationwide and the LP candidate ran a typical LP vote total.

    Could that change? Sure. Do I see any evidence that it already has, or that it’s about to? No.

    By November, social conservatives will have themselves convinced that Mitt Romney is secretly the love child of Edmund Burke and Phyllis Schlafly. They always do.

  31. geoffmartin7777
    May 10th, 2012 @ 2:15 pm

    Lol, you guys are funny… you think I’m gay because I don’t hate gay people.

  32. ThePaganTemple
    May 10th, 2012 @ 2:35 pm

     I don’t think anything, and don’t claim to know.

    But yeah, when the first time you notice a comment on a blog post from somebody is when its dealing with homosexual issues and they come down solidly on the pro-homo side, its easy to make that assumption.

    But hey, if you’re not a pole smoker, good for you. It can’t feel too good to know that when the neighborhood kids get into arguments, one or the other is likely to get called your name.

  33. ThePaganTemple
    May 10th, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

     The big goal of the Constitution Party leaders is to eventually somewhere elect somebody dog catcher. The Libertarian Party should similarly lower their expectations.

    That has nothing to do with the number of social conservatives, and for that matter fiscal conservatives, who stayed at home and didn’t go to the polls at all to vote for John McCain, nor anybody else.

    Hell, I almost didn’t vote for him myself, and only went ahead and did so due to Sarah Palin. But if I hadn’t changed my mind, had I not voted for him, I wouldn’t have wasted my fucking time voting for Bob  Barr or the Constitution Party. A lot of other conservatives stayed home that election.

    Romney was already going to do orders of magnitude better than McCain, before this pronouncement. Now he’s going to do even better than he was going to.

    In 2008 John McCain won a grand total of 22 states. Obama won 28. Romney was already going to win at least twenty five or twenty six. There’s a good chance those 2008 numbers will be reversed this time around, and Romney could conceivably win more than 28 states.

    It hasn’t been that long ago Barak Obama’s approval rating, according to Rasmussen, was 48%-

    In OREGON!

  34. Thomas L. Knapp
    May 10th, 2012 @ 2:56 pm

    I have Romney at five “almost certainly states” and another four or five “possibles.” Over-under on his electoral votes: 90.

  35. geoffmartin7777
    May 10th, 2012 @ 4:26 pm

    Just curious, what else are you bigoted about?

  36. ThePaganTemple
    May 10th, 2012 @ 5:14 pm

     I don’t have any voices in my head telling me who to like or not like, I decide that on my own.

    And yeah, I know now for a fact you’re a fucking five alarm faggot.

  37. ThePaganTemple
    May 10th, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

    Thomas, you’re dreaming big time if you think Barak Obama is going to win forty states and possibly forty five. That would imply he’d win most of the following-

    Montana (sorry, there’s not enough leftists in Missoula to make that remotely possible)
    West Virginia (where a convicted criminal currently serving prison time in Texas just one 41% of the Democrat primary vote)
    North Dakota
    South Dakota
    Nebraska (the whole state not just one electoral vote);
    South Carolina
    North Carolina

    Those are the states Mitt will almost definitely win with little to no problem, and you can probably or at least possibly add Nevada, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, Colorado and Virginia. And he even has a shot at New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, and I think maybe even Connecticut and Maine.

    By the way, you need to learn to be precise and correct in your terminology. Apartheid is where a small minority rules over a larger majority of the population. I don’t see how “marriage apartheid” could be considered remotely accurate for a population that amounts to one or two, at the very best three percent of the population.


  38. Thomas L. Knapp
    May 10th, 2012 @ 5:46 pm

    I’ve publicly predicted that he’ll almost certainly win Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Texas and Wyoming, and that he has a decent shot at Florida, Georgia and South Carolina if he picks a veep who’s got southron mojo. Above and beyond that, I included a 10 electoral vote fudge factor in my over-under.

    I may be wrong, but I’m not “dreaming,” as that implies sentiment for or against one of the candidates — I don’t give a damn who wins where, except to the extent that I may place bets.

    Also that was an early projection. I’m not blind to the possibility that the race might tighten up some between now and November. But I don’t think Romney has a chance in hell of polling as well as McCain did.

  39. SDN
    May 10th, 2012 @ 7:49 pm

    No, those he’s got, in spades.

  40. richard mcenroe
    May 10th, 2012 @ 8:55 pm

     OK, when exactly did opposing gay marriage become “anti-family”?

  41. McGehee
    May 10th, 2012 @ 9:09 pm

    There’s an M in “Shep,” the way I pronounce it.

  42. ThePaganTemple
    May 10th, 2012 @ 10:34 pm

     It’s a talking point to suggest that homosexuals who want the right to get married only want to have stable marriages and families. If you oppose this, then you are supposedly “anti-family”.

  43. Distraction Tactic Backfires: Romney Gains in Polls After Obama Gay Shift : The Other McCain
    May 15th, 2012 @ 11:12 am

    […] Of Course, I Don’t Do Broadway Show Tune LyricsMay 10: President Obama Sends Me E-MailMay 9: Fox News Closet Case (Who’s Not Fooling Anybody) Declares GOP Opponents of Gay Marriage ‘On the …May 9: Hope and Change Go GayCategory: Barack Obama, Da Tech Guy, Ed Driscoll, Election 2012, Gays, […]