Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Sexual McCarthyism
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, October 19, 2006

You know, I simply don't understand how you justify the sexual "outing" of someone and call yourself a person who believes in the right of privacy (or civil liberties).

Now I'm going to resist the urge to paint with a broad brush, but it is also interesting to see who finds outing supposedly gay staffers of Republicans to be appropriate and manages, within their rationalization, to call the Republicans hypocrites.
The Right, of course, is losing its cookies and missing the big picture, about this (who'd a thunk it?). It's not about the sexual orientation of Craig, it's the hypocrisy, stupid.
Of course. No hypocrisy in violating the privacy of those who choose to keep their sexual orientation to themselves though, is there?

Anyway, given this example, I'm not sure you can call it anything other than "sexual McCarthyism":
David Corn, 2006: "[The list] includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications—is that (if it's acucurate) it shows that some of the religious right's favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas"

Joseph McCarthy, 1950: "A list of 205 people...who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department."
It is hard to argue, given the emphasized line, that the purpose of this isn't party over principle, given those who are doing this supposedly represent a point of view which, on principle, would (or should) denounce such outing.

But it appears a substantial number agree that outing gays, if they're Republicans (or apparently work for Republicans) is just fine.

The left should be ashamed.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Yes, I agree. It’s definitely a fringe but loud element that supports "outing", and not an element I’m proud of. I can sympathize to a certain extend with the frustration of seeing someone who is gay toe the party line on some of the vitriolic stands of the Republican party, but don’t think this is a reasonable approach.
 
Written By: Mithras
URL: http://mithrastheprophet.blogspot.com
It’s all about trying to play the "GOP = homophobe" card and alienate just enough GOP voters come election day. There’s absolutely no other agenda there.
David Corn, 2006: "[The list] includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications-is that (if it’s acucurate) it shows that some of the religious right’s favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas
So? I fail to understand why this is thought to be some sort of terrible thing?

Countdown to MK or Glastnost or even Cap coming in and spewing such nonsense about hypocracy and evil antigay GOP in 5...4...3......
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Let me first say that I don’t support the "outing" of anyone, and I’m glad you didn’t claim, like many other have, that this is somehow the position of "the Left". It’s not. We’re talking about a small subset of the left.

But more importantly, I think the term "sexual McCarthyism" is inapt. McCarthy accused people (usually falsely) of being communists in order to villify them. But this wave of outing is being done by people who are gay themselves in order to expose hypocrisy. The "outers" aren’t accusing anyone of being something that they themselves are not. They’re accusing people of being gay, just like them. And I haven’t heard yet of any cases of people being falsely outed. In other words, this analogy would only work if Senator McCarthy was himself an outspoken communist and was identifying his known comrades.

None of this justifies the tactic, at least in my opinion, but it shows just how different this is than true McCarthyism.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
’Outing’ in the context of politics is ugly; an invasion of privacy. No doubt about it.

It should be noted, however, that the practice has caused strife within the Gay civil liberties movement itself, totally outside of the Democrat/Republican context. I remember reading abou a splinter group who considers it their duty to ’out’ anyone they sniff out.

Any movemen, political or otherwise, will generate a radical fringe. It begins to matter when the fringe moves into the center of power.

You can’t say thet ’outing’ is now a policy position of the Democratic Party. You can say,however, that the radical end of the faith-based spectrum has achieced a great deal of power in the Republican Party.
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
And when nothing comes of it, they’ll be mystified. Remember the staffer for Santorum who was outed? He’s still working for Santorum. Santorum didn’t care. And they’re still puzzled by that.

 
Written By: rightwingprof
URL: http://rightwingnation.com
meh. The GOP has put its social conservatives front and center. They have spewed a river of intolerance for years, purely for political gain.

So one guy decided to play hardball with the sexuality of one of the worst hypocrites in DC. The GOP made gay sex an issue, so now they get some in return. Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it?
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
Of course when it comes to AIDS, outing or even testing, becomes an immoral and reprehensible act, exposing what should be a personal and private matter to the hostile eyes of right-wing republican bigots.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
So one guy decided to play hardball with the sexuality of one of the worst hypocrites in DC. The GOP made gay sex an issue, so now they get some in return. Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it?
No problem Francis ... but please spare me any future talk about "principles", "hypocrisy" and "respecting the right of privacy", ’kay?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I also think "Sexual McCarthyism" is an inapt term, but for entirely different reasons. I doubt I’m alone in that when the term "sex" appears anywhere near the term "McCarthy", the next thing that I think of ain’t a politician, it’s "Jenny".

If you’re a guy, and that doesn’t resonate with you, then you are either a candidate to be Mark Foley’s new best friend, or you’ve been thinking waaaaaay too much about politics.
 
Written By: Phil Smith
URL: http://
But this wave of outing is being done by people who are gay themselves in order to expose hypocrisy
Exposing hypocrisy?
Little bit of frustration maybe that some gays might have values that don’t jibe with the left?
Fit into the mold or else!
So, these particular gays rather than being permitted the right to mindlessly toe the mark (and they probably don’t mindlessly toe the mark) for Republican politics, they should mindlessly be toeing the Lefty Democrat (as opposed to centrist Democrats) political mark?!

And you want to talk about exposing ’hypocrisy’?
The GOP made gay sex an issue, so now they get some in return. Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it?
Don’t ask, don’t tell, remember?

Do you suppose they may be working ’inside’ the machine, quietly, calmly, thoughtfully, trying to demonstrate that gays aren’t child molesters and sicko monsters to the conservative leadership?
That they should have rights to inherit property from their partner, etc, and the Republicans should work in that direction?

Nah, that’s too sensible. This must be about hating themselves and being hypocrites. Villify them! Expose them! Attempt to destroy them, and hopefully in the process destroy Republicans who probably know about and accept their being gay.
The point here is to wrest control from the Republicans!
Principles be damned gentlebeings! Our phoney baloney jobs are on the line.



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
We’re talking about a small subset of the left.
Wrong.
But more importantly, I think the term "sexual McCarthyism" is inapt. McCarthy accused people (usually falsely) of being communists in order to villify them.
Wrong again.
And I haven’t heard yet of any cases of people being falsely outed.
Strike three.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Countdown to MK or Glastnost or even Cap coming in and spewing such nonsense about hypocracy and evil antigay GOP in 5...4...3......
I don’t want to disappoint...

The Republicans are simple the party for people who hate gay people. It’s not that Republican politicians hate gay people, I do not believe they do, and the fact that they employ gay people on their staffs pretty much supports that assertion. And though these staffers may be "in the closet", their co-workers and bosses almost certainly know, it is simply not public knowledge.

Bur Republicans found this wedge issue of gay marriage and it has been working for them. It’s not disimiliar to "states rights" in that it is an innocuos easily supportable position, that marriage should be protected, and it gives people who truly despise gay people a party to vote for.

So SOME fringy Democrats are trying to capitalize on the entertaining fact that Republicans are not as anti-gay as SOME of their supporters would like them to be.

I find it hilarious that Republicans many people believe that Republicans will ose votes for NOT being bigots. Of course they are hypocrits and use this issue for poltical gain, and that is a shame, thought not exclusive to Republicans, but it’s better than them actually being bigots.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Michael and I have been covering this for a while over at our place, but looker is right. If the Republican party is going to improve on this issue than making it harder on gays is not the way to do so.

We have no idea whether these individuals are hypocrites at all. It is also hypocritical because why are Democratic staffers of politicians who do not support the gay activist agenda not being outed? Many Democratic politicians do not? For that matter most Democrats do not.

AL,

You are correct it is not the whole left that is doing this, but I have been quite disheartened that most of the left seems to support it and the vast majority seems to at least tacitly accept it. The Kos poll is one example, but in reading comments around the web, most liberals seem to think this is okay. This is one area where I thought I was on the same side as liberals, at least most of them. I now see the concern isn’t so much for gays, as gay democrats. I have never bought the Democrats are pro-gay line, there has been way too much counter evidence on that to not realize that the Democratic Party is a very mixed bag when it comes to gays. I did think that most were better than this though. Very disappointing.

Cap,

They are bigots. They are bigoted to gays of a certain type. In my experience your typical evangelical "values voter" doesn’t hate gays, while from what I see the typical liberal activist has nothing but abject contempt, and is willing to have it acted upon, for gay Republicans.

For more on this I suggest Gay Patriot, and Classical Values has some very good posts. We have several at our place if you are interested. Just scroll around and look for "As the Worm Turns", "The List" and we have it scattered in some other places as well.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
The Republicans are simple the party for people who hate gay people.
Well except for Fred Phelps.

But even if true, how does that excuse what is being done to people who have chosen to keep their sexual orientation private for whatever reason?

I thought the left was all about respecting choice?

And privacy.

And civil liberties.

I mean that’s the line they’re pushing trying to entice me to vote for this apparently mythical libertarian Democrat.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The Republicans are simple the party for people who hate gay people
Proof? I know it’s fun to throw around Moore/Coulter-like firebombs, but sheesh man, gay marriage as a wedge issue is your proof!??! You gotta do a little better than that....well, considering who you are, you probably can’t.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
So much time is spent telling everyone that gays are the same as everyone else except they’re same-sex attracted.
They make good parents, they hold good jobs, they’re decent people.

Then this comes out - ah, well, clearly there’s TWO different types of gays then.
There’s gays who are proper - those that support the leftist agenda
and
THOSE gays - they’re not decent people, they’re hypocrites!

And
The Republicans are simple the party for people who hate gay people.
Generalized rubbish - using such generalizations I can then claim that ALL democrats, including those who have specifically protested here, are in agreement with outing these gays.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The GOP made gay sex an issue...
When did they do that? Marriage, yes. When did they add a gay sex plank to the platform?
Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it?
Is it, Francis? Who’s getting paid back here? For what? Is it working at all?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
CAP" "..in reading comments around the web, most liberals seem to think this is okay. "
—-
i hope you don’t mean bloggers. Too many bloggers are activists with a single-minded view of the world. They don’t in the least represent the broad spectrum of the public they claim to support or represent.

It’s unfortunate that the intellectual thinkers in this country don’t get the media’s or the public’s attention. Being outrageous and adversarial is a marketable ploy, unfortuanely.

There are some good minds blogging away. But you have to look hard to find them and won’t find them at all with just a cursory browsing of the web.




 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
Laime,

No, I meant commenters, though I guess I should include bloggers as well. You are correct that it is anecdotal, and I said as much. It still disappoints me that on the main liberal/left blogs the consensus of the commenters, such as the poll at Kos’, show such a belief. Don’t worry, I don’t hold it against those who don’t hold those views any more than I think it appropriate to hold anti-gay bigots in the Republican party against everyone in that party either.

It does show that liberals shouldn’t expect me to accept their claims of open mindedness and other things at face value, not that I ever did. They are no less prone to delusion, hate, irrationality or other sins than the rest of humanity, conservative, libertarian or otherwise.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
But even if true, how does that excuse what is being done to people who have chosen to keep their sexual orientation private for whatever reason?

I thought the left was all about respecting choice?

And privacy.
I don’t know what Craig’s orientation is. And not that facts matter in this kind of debate, but the claim is not that Craig is gay, but that he has had sex with three men. In other words, the claim is about his behavior, as opposed to his orientation (a distincition that conservatives often have a hard time grasping - witness don’t ask, don’t tell). And while he may have liked to keep his behavior private, the people he supposedly chose to have sex with apparently didn’t.

The left is about respecting choice. What you didn’t see accompanying the claim that Craig had sex with three men is any moral condemnation of the sex itself. No gay bashing. No references to the Bible. No attempt to link homosexuality with pedophillia. No claim that homosexuals should be denied rights given to heterosexuals.

I have yet to read anything from the left that says sex between men is not a choice that should be respected. If you got a link, let’s see it.

That’s the difference between the right and the left. The left doesn’t condemn sexual behavior between consenting adults. The right does. Indeed, if it were up to many on the right, sex between men would be a crime. A crime. It’s insane, really.

What is really going on here is that the right wants the left to unilaterally disarm. To stop talking about private behavior of public figures on the right. Sorry Charlie, but that ain’t going to happen. Remember in 2004 when the right accused Kerry of having an affair with a young journalist and sending her to Africa? I didn’t see any uproar from the right about protecting Kerry’s privacy. Did you? But the minute the left delves into personal behavior, the right gets moralistic about privacy. Funny that.

Sorry, McQ. The left isn’t going to play by the Marquis of Queensberry rules while the right hits below the belt. That’s how the left loses elections. Nice try though.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
In other words, the claim is about his behavior, as opposed to his orientation (a distincition that conservatives often have a hard time grasping - witness don’t ask, don’t tell). And while he may have liked to keep his behavior private, the people he supposedly chose to have sex with apparently didn’t.
Oh, I see. So that makes it all ok.

Wait ... I thought all this behavior talk, when last raised concerning a particular leader, had the left saying it was "just about sex"? And, as I recall, the argument then was that his behavior was none of our business as long as he was doing his job.

Wow. How things change and yet don’t.

MK, you are the perfect example of party politics over principle and epitomize the extremist tribal warfare to which the rest of us are subjected.

Thanks for making the piont.
Sorry, McQ. The left isn’t going to play by the Marquis of Queensberry rules while the right hits below the belt. That’s how the left loses elections. Nice try though.
Heh ... yeah, see my reply to Francis and apply it to yourself, okay?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Proof? I know it’s fun to throw around Moore/Coulter-like firebombs, but sheesh man, gay marriage as a wedge issue is your proof!??! You gotta do a little better than that....well, considering who you are, you probably can’t.
Ok, how about ....
Civil Rights
Texas Republican Party Platform for 2000: The party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy....We publicly rebuke judges Chief Justice Murphy and John Anderson, who ruled that the 100 year-old Texas sodomy law is unconstitutional, and ask that all members of the Republican Party of Texas oppose their re-election.

Short Translation: Gay sex should be a criminal offense.

Texas Republican Party Platform for 2000: No homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be limited to supervised periods.

Short Translation: Gays should be treated like child molesters and should not be allowed to visit children unsupervised.
To have gay sex is to necessarily engage in sodomy. Republicans in one of the largest states in the nation want to criminalize gay sex. In essence, they want to turn every male who has gay sex into a criminal. Now, if that ain’t hate, what is? What if the Democrats in Texas said they wanted to turn every churchgoer into a criminal? Would that constitute hate?

BTW, the 2004 platform, which is in PDF format on the Texas GOP website, says the same thing. "We oppose the legalization of sodomy."





 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
MK, you are the perfect example of party politics over principle and epitomize the extremist tribal warfare to which the rest of us are subjected.
I know you are but what am I?

The rest of us? You don’t engage in the tribalism of which you speak? Give me a break. That’s what this post is all about. Again, what you are mad about is that the left is now using tactics the right has used for years. That’s what makes you upset.

You must be joking.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I mean that’s the line they’re pushing trying to entice me to vote for this apparently mythical libertarian Democrat.
No, this a completely different line, this is the line they are using to try and get anti-gay conservatives to stay home in November, that’s all it is.

It is an ugly ploy and I wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. That said, ugly ploys have worked before, and as MK correctly noted, "The left isn’t going to play by the Marquis of Queensberry rules while the right hits below the belt. That’s how the left loses elections."

I don’t subscribe to the theory that the end (Democratic control of government) justifies the means (violating people’s privacy because it may stop some bigots from showing up at the polls in November).

But seeing that Republicans did not walk away from their party when they some truly despicable things, I suspect that Dem’s won’t be terribly bent about this.

For me Democratic victory and divided government is a stop gap, our government is going to suck for the foreseeable future without some serious changes in how they are punished and rewarded for their actions. I think the even if the Dem’s had a monopoly on power, they would not be as bad the R’s, but they’d still suck.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Sorry, McQ. The left isn’t going to play by the Marquis of Queensberry rules while the right hits below the belt. That’s how the left loses elections. Nice try though.
Please be my guest and ramp the rhetoric up even further.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
LANCE: "(Democrats) are no less prone to
delusion, hate, irrationality or other
sins than the rest of humanity,
conservative, libertarian or otherwise."
——

I console myself with the facr that one day the campaign season will end. However, it seems to be a never ending process lately.

Another source of consolation is that even on DailyKos, there is some actual debate and division of views in the off seasons.

My truly great concern is that the people I know, who are perfectly sane, even while angry at the current Administration, are totally NOT represented by the most popular blogs, commentators and pundits. They read more books than blogs, worry about children, and worry about the future of the country while assaulted daily by screaming voices in the media.
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
McQ:

But even if true, how does that excuse what is being done to people who have chosen to keep their sexual orientation private for whatever reason?

I thought the left was all about respecting choice?

And privacy.

And civil liberties.

I mean that’s the line they’re pushing trying to entice me to vote for this apparently mythical libertarian Democrat.


I’ll do something different here: I have no problem with outing elected politicians. Let’s say it loud and proud. I think it’s a moral act. There are no anti-gay principles at work. Elected politicians have to tell the truth. No politician can make it to office giving no impression of their sexual orientation whatsoever. Let’s be real. Either you run openly gay - and I’ll vote for you - or you mislead - probably involving outright lies - your constituents.

Where’s the morality in that? There ain’t any. I’ll say it loud and clear. If you’re a gay person, you should not run for office while prentending to be a heterosexual. It’s dishonest. You shouldn’t pretend to be a firefighter, you shouldn’t pretend to be married, you shouldn’t pretend you won the Medal of Honor and you shouldn’t pretend to be straight. You deserve to be outed.

Outing may be unpleasant to your personal life. That’s unfortunate. But you signed up for it. You have a responsibility to tell the truth about who you are to your constituents, period.

I don’t neccesarily support outing non-politicians. So... where are all the gay Republican staffer that have been outed? Names? Anyone? Or is this all lame and stupid attempt at spinning the Foley conflict?

You are correct it is not the whole left that is doing this, but I have been quite disheartened that most of the left seems to support it and the vast majority seems to at least tacitly accept it. The Kos poll is one example, but in reading comments around the web, most liberals seem to think this is okay.

Lance, you can’t take a sample on whether it’s right to out in general in the immediate aftermath of the Foley situation. This isn’t a crusade by the Democratic party to destroy Republican gay people. It’s an effort - an alledged effort- by a fringe of gay left-leaners to have gay right-leaners admit that they are gay. That’s the end of it.

When people here equate "admitting you’re gay" with "destroying their lives" you must ask - why are these two things equal? You’re inherently revealing the anti-gay bias among conservatives that is the only logical source of any alledged damage they are suffering.

Aside from their dishonesty.
Frankly, dishonesty is always punished.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Laime,

I understand and feel your pain. It is the same at times on the right as well. Like I said, I am making no blanket condemnation. I just think we all should realize we all disagree, but intolerance is a multi-partisan issue.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Texas Republican Party Platform for 2000:
Why didn’t you use the platform for 2006?
Not finding enough gay bashing in the present to suit your purposes?
Don’t know for sure myself, just askin...

Ya know, I’ll bet if I tell you torturing prisoners is okay because that’s what it takes to win wars, and people who play by the rules lose wars, you’ll tell me that’s different.

You cute little "whatever it takes, ends justify the means" hypocrite you....
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
McQ: the personal is not the political. I would really love to live in a world in which negative campaigning doesn’t work. I’d also really love to live in a world in which libertarians and fiscal conservatives drive the social conservatives out of power in the Republican party.

Unfortunately, neither of these are true. So politics is now played really dirty, with important figures in the Republican party claiming that the Democrats’ tolerance to the LGBT community caused the 9/11 attacks.

If Republicans are going to GOTV with this kind of rhetoric, some Democrats will try to suppress the social conservative vote by publicizing the hypocrisy within the Republican party.

I’d be glad to put people’s sex lives back in a sphere of privacy. But you guys have to go first.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
Why didn’t you use the platform for 2006?
Not finding enough gay bashing in the present to suit your purposes?
Don’t know for sure myself, just askin...
Go to page 14 of the 2006 platform and you will see the same thing. Nothing changes with these people.

http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/2006_Plat_with_TOC_2.pdf?docID=2022

Sexual McCarthyism? My god. Even in McCarthy’s day simply being a communist wasn’t a crime. But the stated platform of the Texas GOP is that anyone who has gay sex should be convicted of a crime and thrown in jail. The stated position of the Republican Party of Texas is that one should lose ones right to liberty if one has sex with another consenting adult of the same gender.

Now, one would suppose that right wingers would be upset over this. After all, it is 2006. Right? Right? No.

However, they do get upset when some obscure leftist says a sitting Republican Senator has had gay sex.

It boggles the mind.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Glasnost -
I’ll do something different here: I have no problem with outing elected politicians
Hey, we agree, they should be honest about it.

McQ -
but it is also interesting to see who finds outing supposedly gay staffers of Republicans to be appropriate and manages, within their rationalization, to call the Republicans hypocrites.
McCornthyism [John Podhoretz]

David Corn, 2006: "[The list] includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications—is that (if it’s acucurate) it shows that some of the religious right’s favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas"
So, glasnost, is their staff being gay and not announcing it a dishonesty?


And then there’s MK -
However, they do get upset when some obscure leftist says a sitting Republican Senator has had gay sex.
What about the staffers MK - is it okay to out the staffers? It is, right?
That’s what this was about, or, um, didn’t you read it?
And I admitted I didn’t know what the GOP stood for in Texas currently, I just wanted to make sure you weren’t reaching back to 1620 for your information.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Just another example of how low American political discourse has sunk. I don’t know if "Sexual McCarthyism" is a good or bad label, but there is something sickening about that kind of political tactic. After all, it’s not like there are any more important issues in the world today than the private lives of Congressional staffers.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Glasnost,

I have never said it destroys their lives, though the intent is to destroy their careers. Luckily it hasn’t worked so far. That doesn’t make it any less despicable because the Christian Right has so far been pretty well behaved. I also think it is likely to backfire and encourage their turnout, not depress it. Because it hopefully will not work doesn’t make it any less despicable either. If I were to run for office I promise there would be plenty that isn’t relevant that I think my constituents do not need to know and, as long as it isn’t criminal, my sexual habits are one of them. If I want to slide them by and people come to an erroneous conclusion then so be it, it should have no relevance.

It is also not "alleged," it is true. That is why the debate at Kos is over its justification. If it wasn’t true, why the debate? Besides, go to blogactive, Rogers says he is doing it. It isn’t hidden. When this first came up I told you this has been an ongoing attempt for years. It has never been a secret, why do you keep denying something anyone who has any experience in Gay politics knows? The organizers of this have said themselves most of the targets are staffers, including Rick Santorum’s Chief of Staff. Once again, there is nothing hidden or deniable in any of this, and there really never has been.
There are no anti-gay principles at work.
That is BS. There is an anti gay principle at work here for many. You seem to be under the impression that Democrats are not bigots, plain old fashioned bigots. Well I am here to tell you a huge swath are. I meet and talk to them everyday. Bob Beckel is a good example of someone who hung his bigotry out on National TV, but they are numerous, don’t fool yourself. That doesn’t even count the one’s who claim they aren’t, but they really are. I am just talking your garden variety homophobe. Then there is that obviously large percentage who are definitely bigoted against gays who are not of the left. Rogers is one of those as is Avarosis. Bigotry can include a political dimension as well as the kulaks and pretty much any black conservative can attest.

Don’t fool yourself, if they were out Avarosis and Rogers hate wouldn’t disappear.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Glasnost -
I said they should be honest - granted if they’re keeping a wife or husband for appearences only, well, okay, that’s being dishonest.

But I’d like to make a slight modification to what I said earlier - they shouldn’t be dishonest about it. That’s contrasted to being ’honest’ and announcing it right up front.

Suppose they just don’t say. Why would they? We don’t make that part of the campaign as a rule.
How does this sound on the campaign trail...
"I’m Joe Smith, running as Senator from Texas, and I only have sex with women!"

We didn’t ask if, say, Jimmy Carter had sex with women.
We don’t ask those questions, we infer.
If they show us a picture of wife and kiddies, we infer they’ve had sex at some point there. We probably figure they’re not gay, we probably figure they’re not having extramarital affairs.

Having said that - Let’s stake out your position a little more firmly.
Do you think it’s dishonest if they show us a picture of the wife and kids AND they have extra marital hetrosexual affairs?

Or is it only dishonest if they show us the wife and kids and have extra marital homosexual affairs?

I mean, suppose they’re bi-sexual?
Is that dishonest if they’re having affairs of the homosexual type but not the heterosexual type and they don’t tell us?

Do you think Lance is right maybe, that if it doesn’t come up directly, as a question, it’s their business, not ours?

A a rule we don’t ask them who they have sex with do we, so, when does it become your business to know?
Presumably when they start harping on one way or another being wrong, but what if they don’t?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
That’s the difference between the right and the left. The left doesn’t condemn sexual behavior between consenting adults. The right does. Indeed, if it were up to many on the right, sex between men would be a crime. A crime. It’s insane, really.
Exactly. In fact it was a crime in many states until fairly recently.

I’m not about to claim that Republicans hate gay people, that would be a ludicrous claim.

However, since the major complaint I’ve seen is that this was all designed to supress Republican voter turnout it’s obvious that many Republicans believe that many other Republicans have a real problem with homosexuality.

Regardless though, the outing is wrong, unquestionably wrong.

The Democrats should stick to pointing out the black love children of politicians or their college age lovers who enjoy visiting Africa.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Looker, I’m operating as under the assumption that you can’t run for office without your basic sexual orientation coming to light, unless you actively work to hide it. Running for office involves media. Interviews, including pictures of the candidate’s personal life. Their hobbies. How they unwind. Stories about what they used to do, wherever. Their temperament. If you’re gay and not hiding it, but just... not talking about it, theoretically... one of your friends is going to mention it to the press.. unless you tell them specifically not to.

If you just have a record completely expunged of all information whatsoever about any form of sexual/romantic history... that fact in itself would make journalists want to know, "why?" Not because of anti-gay crusade, either, just because it’s an anomaly.

You can’t be homosexual, run for office, not actively work to decieve people, and not have it come out, in my opinion. An honest "none of your business" will just lead to the information being exposed through third parties... unless *nobody* knows. Now, you don’t have to tell people if you’d rather have it exposed that way. I imagine it won’t be an issue unless a) you tried to hide it or b) your constituents don’t like gay people.


It is also not "alleged," it is true. That is why the debate at Kos is over its justification. If it wasn’t true, why the debate? Besides, go to blogactive, Rogers says he is doing it. It isn’t hidden.

Well, I asked the question because there aren’t any actual names in the actual media of actual staffers who are actually gay. If there really was an attempt to expose gay republican staffers to public shame, would those names not in fact be in the public eye?

Then there is that obviously large percentage who are definitely bigoted against gays who are not of the left. Rogers is one of those as is Avarosis. Bigotry can include a political dimension as well as the kulaks and pretty much any black conservative can attes

Political bigotry as a separate thing from simply hating moonbats or wingnuts?
This is not a rational concept. Bigotry is about hating someone of a skin color or sexual orientation because of that orientation. If you hate black conservatives, you probably hate conservatives, and if you like black non-conservatives, you obviously don’t hate black people.
I would take this one back to the drawing board.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
I must say John Cole’s take on all of this is hilarious.
“Homosexuality is wrong and the root of all evil and homosexual marriage will be the downfall of Western Society so we must amend the Constitution to ban it and we will use homosexuals as campaign props every two years, but oh, by the way, we hate the sin and not the sinner, and even then the sin doesn’t bother us that much as long as you stay in the closet and do whatever you want as long as we don’ know about it and we are fine with that but recognize we will still call you out in public as evil and scream about gay adoptions so we can get elected but if any of us are gay we should be allowed to keep that private and oh, by the way, you are not normal because the bible says so.”
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
The left is about respecting choice
Unless that choice is to stay in the closet - then the left is no longer in favor of choice.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
I’ll do something different here: I have no problem with outing elected politicians. Let’s say it loud and proud. I think it’s a moral act.
Some moral base you come from, there, ’nost. But fine, let’s give you that for the sake of argument.

How about staffers?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ: the personal is not the political. I would really love to live in a world in which negative campaigning doesn’t work. I’d also really love to live in a world in which libertarians and fiscal conservatives drive the social conservatives out of power in the Republican party.
That’s fine Francis. So the way to move toward the world you’d ’really love to live in’ is to do what, condone it because the other side does it too or condemn both sides when they do it?
Unfortunately, neither of these are true. So politics is now played really dirty, with important figures in the Republican party claiming that the Democrats’ tolerance to the LGBT community caused the 9/11 attacks.

If Republicans are going to GOTV with this kind of rhetoric, some Democrats will try to suppress the social conservative vote by publicizing the hypocrisy within the Republican party.

I’d be glad to put people’s sex lives back in a sphere of privacy. But you guys have to go first.
Who’s "you guys"? Time to walk the walk Francis.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"so we must amend the Constitution to ban it and we will use homosexuals as campaign props every two years"
The only people who use homosexuals as campaign props are the left. If Gavin Newsome and the MA State legislation didn’t override the voters’ choice, gay marriage would have played no part in the 2004 elections. Who was more vocal about Mary Cheney’s lifestyle, Kerry/Hairdo or Bush/Cheney?

That’s the difference between the right and the left. The left doesn’t condemn sexual behavior between consenting adults. The right does. Indeed, if it were up to many on the right, sex between men would be a crime. A crime. It’s insane, really.
Name on prominent ELECTED Republican official who’s said this. Just one.
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
“Homosexuality is wrong and the root of all evil and homosexual marriage will be the downfall of Western Society"

Sorta like Enzite is all you need to make your wife a happy woman.

Glasnost -
If you’re gay and not hiding it, but just... not talking about it, theoretically... one of your friends is going to mention it to the press.. unless you tell them specifically not to.
I see what you’re saying - as a hypothetical (not to use as a beating stick, and not a trick question) - what about if they’re single and running for office?
I mean, again, we don’t expect to peer through their bedroom window to see what they’re up to, regardless of their orientation, and don’t expect their friends to give us the guided tour if they don’t mention it themselves.

Do you see what I mean?
But I guess it’s going to depend on the office - the higher the office, the more scrutiny you’re going to get during the campaign. I’m hard pressed to argue against your view (so, heheh, I’m not going to!)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
How about staffers?

I’d say, off the top of my head, that’s it’s a morally debatable thing to do.. probably outright questionable.

But it’s trickier than it looks, ain’t it? We use staffer background in non-sexual areas all the time. If your staffers had KKK backgrounds, it would be fair game, especially if there were a concentration of them. If your staffers came from CAIR, it would also be fair game... wouldn’t it?

If you were a Democratic politician who "surrounded themselves" with gay staffers... would a Republican avoid using attack ads about it? In Kansas? What if those staffers had histories of advocating... gay adoption rights? If they’d marched in a gay pride parade, with the outlandish visuals that can provide, would the other party forswear using that?

Are staffers’ lives and backgrounds off limits all the time? Clearly not.

If you’re not a politician, there’s a case that exposing info about you violates your privacy. On the other hand, information about staffers’ background is often fair game. It ties in through the agenda that they’re likely to pursue. Or it is perceived to do so. Intel agencies do the same thing.
It’s not very fair when you, a staffer, or your candidate is punished - even at the polls - just for your sexual preference.

But if you’re a Republican - or a Democrat - who spends a lot of time calling gay people a threat, and you have gay staffers, the inconsistency between your rhetoric and your employment choices will be called into question - by people who are actually trying to weaken your rhetoric. I don’t know if it’s fair. But I think it’s pretty inevitable. And the politician in question is a chump for being a hypocrite.

Besides, I see a fringe of gay activists who happen to be leftist leading this, not Democrats in general. I’m not on their side, or anyone’s. I think the entire case is a messy and morally complicated one all the way through. But I do see a blogswarm growing over what I see to be distortion and hype, with a large helping of conflating disparate situations and extremely selective framing.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
walking the walk on this issue is difficult to establish because it requires not doing something.

since my life is by most regards as dull as dishwater (wake up, drive to work, work at desk, go home, play with dogs, talk to wife, eat dinner, go to sleep, repeat), there are an infinite number of things I don’t do every day. (have fun, commit crimes, out gays, etc.)

but, I don’t read FireDogLake any more, I think that Hamsher’s use of blackface was reprehensible, I thought her apology was atrocious, and while I’m no fan of Lieberman, his likely victory seems to be adequate punishment.

oh, and i’m probably voting for Arnold — divided govt in California will restrain the otherwise liberal legislature from enacting its worst impulses.

[btw, you never did respond to my point about bond debt being appropriate for building infrastructure with a 30-year life span.]

[i saw Maria Shriver on a plane a few months back; she looked terrible — too skinny and exhausted. Being a democratic first lady to a republican governor, even one as moderate as AS, must be tough work.]
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
But it’s trickier than it looks, ain’t it? We use staffer background in non-sexual areas all the time. If your staffers had KKK backgrounds, it would be fair game, especially if there were a concentration of them. If your staffers came from CAIR, it would also be fair game... wouldn’t it?
In the realm of privacy those aren’t comparable.

If you interviewed a guy for a job you could ask him if he’d been in the KKK or worked for CAIR.

What you couldn’t ask him, since it is a privacy issue, is whether he liked boys or girls.

So no, it’s not debatable at all. It’s only debatable now because it’s politically convenient for the left at the moment. Shoe on the other foot and we’d be hearing howls of protest about privacy rights and homophobic attacks.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
However, since the major complaint I’ve seen is that this was all designed to supress Republican voter turnout it’s obvious that many Republicans believe that many other Republicans have a real problem with homosexuality.
You read it wrong. It’s obvious that DEMOCRATS believe that many other Republicans have a real problem with homosexuality, hence this campaign. However, turnout numbers suggest that is going to be a deeply flawed argument.

In addition, is it really wise for the Dems- who are always courting "values voters" or religious voters- to be gameplanning as if that segment are intolerant haters?

Never gonna get the votes that way. So they play for the strategy of denial.

Still won’t work no matter how fellow travelers like MK or Glasnost try to rationalize it

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
walking the walk on this issue is difficult to establish because it requires not doing something.
Really? I didn’t have any trouble doing something by denouncing the Republican ads in the post I linked too.

I’m not having any problem doing what is necessary to denounce the outing tripe either.
but, I don’t read FireDogLake any more, I think that Hamsher’s use of blackface was reprehensible, I thought her apology was atrocious, and while I’m no fan of Lieberman, his likely victory seems to be adequate punishment.
But you see, that is doing something. I do read her occasionally looking for any and all opportunities presented to rip her rather puerile politics to shreds. Unfortunately they’re usually such vapid but hate-filled screeds there’s rarely any "there" there.
[btw, you never did respond to my point about bond debt being appropriate for building infrastructure with a 30-year life span.]
I think that’s because Dale wrote the post to which you’re referring. I live in GA.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I tried to come up with a logical argument for outing staffers that work for Republican legislators and I just can’t come up with one. The only argument is an end justifies the means argument.

Outing gay Republican staffer gets Democrats elected, therefore it is justified.

I disagree with this on several levels, first it is just sleazy and wrong, second, it is certainly not guaranteed to work and could even backfire.

The problem is that I think people automatically assume that a staffer is the ideological twin of whoever they work for. This MAY be the case for the top staffers, but lower level staffers may just be people trying to get experience in Washington.

I worked for a Democrat in Florida when I was a registered Republican. No big deal. I wasn’t in charge of anything important, certainly not policy, and I never publicized my party affiliation.

So no, the hypocrisy argument doesn’t fly for staffers, at least not generally.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
BTW, the 2004 platform, which is in PDF format on the Texas GOP website, says the same thing. "We oppose the legalization of sodomy."
….
Why didn’t you use the platform for 2006?
Not finding enough gay bashing in the present to suit your purposes?
Don’t know for sure myself, just askin...

Now, one would suppose that right wingers would be upset over this. After all, it is 2006. Right? Right? No.

However, they do get upset when some obscure leftist says a sitting Republican Senator has had gay sex.

It boggles the mind.
It truly does.
And it’s funny that when a fringe group of whomever makes an effort to out gays within the Republican ranks, that is what ruffles everyone’s feathers.


Now I don’t know what kind of mamby-pamby, limp wrist Republicans you have in Yankeeland… Or what kind of sun worshiping, latte drinking, Cadillac Escalade driving Republicans out there in the west.

But down here in Texas, we’ve got your serious Right wing Christian conservatives. No sissies allowed.


Knowing the breed of Republicans down here in Texas, I often wonder why there are so many “The Republicans are our friends” libertarians. Especially around here.

Taxes, property rights, unnecessary regulation you say??? Whatever.

Taxes – Governor Rick ”gee your hair smells terrific” Perry (R), installed a new franchise tax that I pay now that I didn’t pay before.

Property Rights – (ahem)

And I am not alone in my industry mired by unnecessary regulation installed by GWB when he was governor.
This is not to suggest that the Dems would be better, but how some cuddle up to the Right is beyond me.

And the fact that a Republican party – in this day and age – wishes to criminalize consensual sex between two adults should bring on nausea. But I digress…

Oh, I’m sorry. What should we be upset about again.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
re: wrong poster.

ahem. oops. you’d think I’d check on the author before writing something like that. so i’m an idiot. not like that’s a surprise.

on the larger issue:

one problem I have with a lot of political discourse is the whole kabuki dance of ritual denunciation. (which, to bring matters close to home, is what kicked off the whole Greenwald affair.) CAIR should do more to denounce radical muslims. The GOP should denounce the idiot who wrote the ad you talk about in a later post. somehow, people have come to believe that extracting the pound of flesh by getting (or, even better, not getting) an apology from leading members of an opposing viewpoint for something stupid done by someone nominally on that team is actually worth it.

witness the comment "the left should be ashamed". why? if i felt shame for every boneheaded move made by someone who purports to be a political ally, i’d be overdosed on shame.

should "the right" be ashamed for Abramoff? Foley? I’m not requesting or even expecting that anyone feel shame for the acts of those idiots; but I do hope to see their party driven from power because their conduct demonstrates (to me) that the party as a whole has so lost its way that it no longer deserves the majority.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
I do believe in outing. I would absolutely vote for any gay who believed in the things I do, But I don’t want anyone in the closet in a positions of authority.
If you live your entire life as a lie then how can you be trusted in anything else? and don’t you open yourself up to blackmail. Let them come out, or don’t run.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
It ties in through the agenda that they’re likely to pursue.
Well, geeze, if that’s the case, you don’t WANT to nail these guys to the public wall! You want to quietly celebrate them! If it ties to the agenda their boss is trying to pursue then it means their boss is pursuing positive angles on the gay agenda.

So, it’s insanity to use them like this unless, without question, the object is to take the Republican down, even if he or she is working towards goals that the outer’s might otherwise support.
That’s like gnawing your own foot off to get out of a trap rather than using the key because it was a Republican who gave you the key!

The diddly brains that think this is going to help are going to end up with a forward thinking Republican replaced by some narrow minded bigoted Republican!
I can tell you that the votesr are NOT going to suddenly ’Vote Democrat!’ when they find out a Republican office holder has gays on their staff.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
witness the comment "the left should be ashamed". why?
Because they’re supporting the outing.
should "the right" be ashamed for Abramoff? Foley? I’m not requesting or even expecting that anyone feel shame for the acts of those idiots; but I do hope to see their party driven from power because their conduct demonstrates (to me) that the party as a whole has so lost its way that it no longer deserves the majority.
For what they did? No. They have no control over that.

For excusing it or trying to justify it or the like (if they did).

Yes.

And that was my point about the left. Heck, you can see what I’m talking about concerning the left right here in this very comment section. And if you’re still not convinced wander over to DU or hit the Kos poll I linked to above.

That’s why they should be ashamed.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Glasnost,
If you were a Democratic politician who "surrounded themselves" with gay staffers... would a Republican avoid using attack ads about it? In Kansas? What if those staffers had histories of advocating... gay adoption rights? If they’d marched in a gay pride parade, with the outlandish visuals that can provide, would the other party forswear using that?
So, are you saying that we should defend them when they do so, similar to what you are doing now?
Besides, I see a fringe of gay activists who happen to be leftist leading this, not Democrats in general.
If the left applauds it, which the evidence is that a large percentage, most likely a majority do, then we will get more of it. Rogers, Aravosis and their allies wouldn’t get away with it if the left were speaking out about it. That support is crucial in legitimizing the tactic.
Well, I asked the question because there aren’t any actual names in the actual media of actual staffers who are actually gay. If there really was an attempt to expose gay republican staffers to public shame, would those names not in fact be in the public eye?
They have been and they are promising more. So far it hasn’t been an issue because Santorum and others have done the right thing.
Political bigotry as a separate thing from simply hating moonbats or wingnuts?
This is not a rational concept. Bigotry is about hating someone of a skin color or sexual orientation because of that orientation. If you hate black conservatives, you probably hate conservatives, and if you like black non-conservatives, you obviously don’t hate black people.
I would take this one back to the drawing board.
Wrong. Let us get a definition:
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from their own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman.
To lack tolerance for a Republican gay is bigotry by the standard definition. To especially despise black conservatives as opposed to white conservatives shows bigotry. Same with gays. It also is probably part of a general bigotry as well which is only shown toward those who are gay or black conservatives, but it is there. You can be a bigot about other ideas, yes you can. For example, religious bigotry. Rogers hates gay conservatives more than conservatives. It is a consuming hate which he has allowed to dominate his life. It is as bad to endorse his work as to endorse David Dukes rhetoric. You don’t get off the hook by just saying, only a few of us actually did it, if you are busy applauding it.
But it’s trickier than it looks, ain’t it? We use staffer background in non-sexual areas all the time. If your staffers had KKK backgrounds, it would be fair game, especially if there were a concentration of them. If your staffers came from CAIR, it would also be fair game... wouldn’t it?
Those are their political beliefs, completely relevant. Who you have sex with is not.

 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Shoe on the other foot and we’d be hearing howls of protest about privacy rights and homophobic attacks.

This is probably true.


So, are you saying that we should defend them when they do so, similar to what you are doing now?

I don’t consider myself as defending anyone. My morality meter reads something like "no clear winner, guess again." I’m just willing to debate the issue.

Those are their political beliefs, completely relevant. Who you have sex with is not.

Hmmm. There may be a bright line drawn under this, in the legal realm, but in the political realm, it’s clear that the perception that who you sleep with may affect your politics, exists - especially when you are legislating about social, political, and legal issues that relate to who you might be sleeping with.

Now, this may just be bigotry in action. Or it may be "character" and "values" in action. I’m not really sure. Like I said, I think there’s a case to be made that it’s unfair, and who knows, even a violation of privacy rights, when gay staffers are outed. But if so, it’s in a realm of privacy-rights-violation that celebrities and political figures put up with on a regular basis in our society.
I don’t know if politicians have a right to privacy, and I don’t know how to balance the rights of privacy of the individuals who serve them with the right of the public to scrutinize their backgrounds and characters. I think it’s a messy subject.

But I’m not at all sure that it has attracted widespread support among Democrats. The issue is conflated with the outing of politicians, given the current popular example that started it all.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
witness the comment "the left should be ashamed". why?
Because they’re supporting the outing.
I expect people who claim to be libertarians to understand that collective identities are very tricky. I doubt very much that most Democrats or liberals support the ’outing,’ even if hard core activists do. What is "the left," and what evidence is there to support positing this kind of collective identity and collective support/need for shame?

Perhaps individuals should feel shame if they support this sort of thing, but this kind of collectivist fallacy doesn’t make sense to me. It also doesn’t make sense when it is done to criticism the so-called "right" either.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider