If A Democrat Uses Gay-Baiting In A Campaign And No One Notices, Does The Gay Leadership Make A Sound?

I read this post Dan did over at GayPatriot today and it got me to thinking.

CoD? Cliffnotes: The post relates the issue of a Democratic candidate (Tim Kaine) using a radio spot to accuse his Republican opponent (Jerry Kilgore) of "not being straight." In the context of the ad, the phrase is intended to mean that Kilgore lies to the voters. However, Kilgore, who is married with kids, apparently has what some would describe as "gay" traits: a gay voice... maybe a more metro-sexual appearance. Dan wondered where the gay leadership was in condemning this obvious double-edged attack.

My original take with this whole thing was, "Yeah, if the parties were reversed, there'd be a shit-storm of fallout courtesy of the left. But there's also no proof that the ad is intended to be used as gay-bait."

I'm still kinda' thinking along those lines, but something else crept up in my brain. I've posted her and there about all the different things people on the left, including our esteemed gay leadership, will get their thongs in a knot over. Movies. Paintjobs. Birth certificates. It almost seems as though anything and everything has the potential to be an affront to these people in one way or another. So... why isn't this?

As a gay man, if I'm supposed to be offended that the University of Iowa has a pink locker room for it's visiting teams, should I not also be offended that the Democratic party (the party of my supposed peers) is using homosexual innuendo - intentional or not - as a political tool to smear an opponent?

Or is it just OK because the opponent is one of them pesky conservatives....?

Update: Robbie says what I really meant to say. I had a beer or two and my eloquence and command of the English language is sub-par at the moment. .... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.