Patterico notes. Captain Ed comments.
Kos is taking a poll. "Do you agree with outing Gay Republicans?" 70% say "yes. But don't you think this percentage would change if the strategy backfires? I think aggressive characters like our "lefty blogger" think that uncovering gay Republicans will disgust social conservatives and change their voting behavior. They might also believe that they are demonstrating hypocrisy and that doing so will motivate Republicans to abandon social conservatism. I would like to see Republicans abandon social conservatism, and I'm not cheering on these slimy outings. But, honestly, I think these creepy, gleeful efforts at outing will only make social conservatives more conservative, and they will continue to look to the Republican party to serve their needs.
१८ ऑक्टोबर, २००६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२०५ टिप्पण्या:
205 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The same strategy backfired last year when both Edwards and Kerry outed Mary Cheney during the debates. This will backfire less, because it's likely to get less press and to be seen by fewer people.
According to Red State, though, it's payback for not voting against Alito at the confirmation hearings, before which time Mike Rogers threatened to out a closeted United States Senator if he voted for Alito.
That, of course, is a more serious charge.
Oh brother. Let the witchhunt commence. As if private sexual acts have anything to do with his job.
I'll note that the (married) Senator is accused only of having homosexual encounters, not of being gay.
A poll gauging the approval of outing gay Republicans, besides not existing at that link, is different from an actual creepy, gleeful effort to out gay Republicans.
I'm not personally interested in hacking into James Inhofe's Netflix account looking for Jared Leto movies, but to the extent they engage in gay bashing, or work for Man-on-Dog Santorum, I say fair is fair.
As for whether it's a good thing for Democrats electorally to out Republicans, I think that's hard to dispute.
The Republican party depends on the unholy alliance between social and economic conservatives. It's in the economic interest of middle class people to vote Democratic. Middle class social conservatives have voted Republican because a) everybody likes to think they're going to be rich some day; and b) the GOP hates the same things that they hate (gays, immigrants, "secular progressives" etc.). But if they also are gay in some substantial number, there will probably be a reckoning.
I guess at the end of the day it's not all that different than the "outing" Harry Reid as being up to his elbows in questionable financial transactions despite his penchant for the apparently hypocritical screaming of "Culture of Corruption" upon hearing the most fleeting of rumors about the behavior of his political opponents, but it does have a sleazier feel to it.
Of course, one of the alleged acts being "outed" is legal, while the other probably isn't, but still...
Menken -
Actually, the scandal was the Republican leadership's prior knowledge of his solicitation of youths.
Lieberman leftist? You do know that most of Lieberman's support now comes from the right, don't you?
On Nov. 7, the Republicans are going to get the thrashing they so richly deserve. It will have very little to do with their sexual orientation, as much as the hardcore loyalists here might like to grasp at straws.
I want the hearings to start so bad I can taste it. So many impeachable offenses. So little time.
daveg -
The Harry Reid story has all the legs of Tammy Duckworth.
The folks who engage in "outing" tactics of this sort obviously aren't conservatives themselves, and almost certainly don't socialize in conservative circles. Perhaps they're constructing their image of how conservatives, especially social or religious conservatives, think or act based on a projection about their parents. Whatever. The whole thing merely reflects the stereotypes that characters of that sort construct for themselves of social conservatives: dumb, intolerant, vindictive, easily manipulated. Small wonder that they don't have a clue how to appeal to conservatives, or what is likely to influence them.
Many lefties seriously believe homophobia is bigotry, so outing a gay Republican is more an argument about hypocrisy than of scaring away social conservatives. The Republican Party is trying to prevent the establishment of equal rights to score some political points ... so it's a powerful argument that "they are what they hate." I just cringe thinking it affects real people, though.
But then again, the far right's got Clinton murders, Kerry's swiftboating and McCain's black babies, so are all things now on the table?
alcibiades: Mary Cheney already was "outed" before the debate. If she didn't seem to feel ashamed about it, why should Kerry for saying it in a debate?
Madisonman: Can one have homosexual encounters while not being gay? (a line i use at the bars... just kidding.)
The Harry Reid story has all the legs of Tammy Duckworth.
That's as may be, but where is the evidence behind the slander of the "gay" Senator? Sources which will remain anonymous?
I think the comparison is apt, more so if you believe Reid is innocent. Where's the compelling public interest in the sexual proclivities of a Senator? It's not nearly as difficult to find the public interest in learning that a Senate leader doesn't practice anywhere near what he preaches when it comes to personal ethics.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
The folks who engage in "outing" tactics of this sort obviously aren't conservatives themselves, and almost certainly don't socialize in conservative circles.
LOL, maybe not the outing of conservatives, but where do you suppose those Ann Richards rumors came from, as the Shrub was making his ascent to greatness?
Doyle:
You are direct and honest about your explanation of the strategy and tactics of "outing" and your approval of them. I respect that.
I am afraid you do not understand completely the "unholy alliance" you describe as the makeup of the current Republican party.
There are, unfortunately for your analysis, a considerable number of "Scoop Jackson" democrats among them, of which I am one.
The strategy and tactics of "outing" are the kind of thing that drove us out of the democratic party, and keep us from being swing voters on which the democrats can count in difficult times.
It's in the economic interest of middle class people to vote Democratic.
I have hear this before? How is it that it is in the economic interest of the middle class to vote democratic? Please explain that?
Democratic socialist policies only make people poorer.
Democrats can only win by creating scandals or lying to their constituents or by creating a government program to provide free gifts. Democrats are a bankrupt party intellectually. They have no ideas other than raising the minimum wage.
Doyle, two years of hearings and impeachment nonsense would be the worst thing for this country since the last six years of Republican overspending and rights-trampling.
The Harry Reid story has all the legs of Tammy Duckworth.
BTW, that's pretty tacky. Got any Max Cleland jokes you'd care to share?
"It's in the economic interest of middle class people to vote Democratic."
In what bizarre alternate reality are higher taxes and more government spending good for the middle class?
The "middle class" needs good roads, good schools, a good police force, and protection from foreign enemies.
The Democrats wouldn't provide any of that: they're against roads for environmental reasons, against school reform because of the teachers' unions, against the death penalty even for extremely dangerous criminals, and against the War on Terror.
But they'll raise taxes and increase spending on welfare, medicaid, and HUD, by golly. If it weren't for those darn wedge issues like abortion the middle class would lift the scales from their eyes and tax themselves into prosperity!
Chris,
Was Mary Cheney on the ballot? A candidates children are off limits. Kerry's & Edwards' remarks were liberal projection of the real intolerance they maintain. It revealed his slimy demeanor. He could have said Andrew Sullivan and made his point.
Doyle said:
"The Harry Reid story has all the legs of Tammy Duckworth."
Doyle - you are a disgusting little puke to use Duckworth's horrible combat injuries to attempt to turn a clever phrase.
I was young and dumb once too but I doubt there is hope for you.
And to address Ann's post, I predict these obnoxious outings will turn independent voters away from the Dems if the voters believe the Dems endorse this type of invasion of privacy.
And Doyle is still a little puke.
I am looking forward to impeachment and all the Bush lied rhetoric. Maybe it will drum up older questions such as FDR sending 50,000 Americans to their deaths with the stupid policy of unconditional surrender.
and rights-trampling.
Madisonman, you must be a supporter of the terrorists to be crying about their rights. How terrible that we listen to their international phone calls, or tap their cell phones. Maybe you are upset because your phonecalls from Afghanistan are now being monitored by the FBI.
Chris said: alcibiades: Mary Cheney already was "outed" before the debate. If she didn't seem to feel ashamed about it, why should Kerry for saying it in a debate?
I didn't mean to imply she wasn't out and about, I meant that it was inappropriate to drag that fact into a debate, because it wasn't relevant, moreover, it showcased very unattractive personal characteristics.
In fact, it caused a mini tsunami of disgust at his methods by people who may have been on the line - so even if he felt free to try and alienate republican supporters of Cheney by dragging Cheney's daughter into a debate where she didn't belong, it was stupid politics. And the fact that he did it after Edwards' blunder in the previous debate, makes it even stupider, showcasing his political tin ear.
It was risky when Edwards did it; it was ludicrous when Kerry repeated it, although, since it ended up helping, I'm glad he did.
The Dems always construct this god awful image of who they believe Republicans/conservatives are - based on the worst stereotypes and propaganda and some kind of horrific projection.
And then, having constructed the boogeyman, they believe absolutely that it is true.
As for your question to Madisonman:
Madisonman: Can one have homosexual encounters while not being gay? (a line i use at the bars... just kidding.)
Sure, there's bisexuality. Only omnisexuality, but that is something else again.
I respectully disagree, Madison. This administration is a cancer that is eating away our government and our national security from the inside.
Just think of all the abuses we know about now, despite the wall of secrecy and no subpoena power to breach it.
I'm not saying he needs to be actually removed from office, but nor do I want to wait for "history" to judge this presidency. It's not enough for me that he's historically unpopular. I want him further humiliated and politically crippled. Something that will wipe that shit-eating smirk off his face.
If I sound deranged, you haven't been paying enough attention.
whoops, that last line was supposed to read, "also omnisexuality", not "only omnisexuality."
The Democrats wouldn't provide any of that: they're against roads for environmental reasons, against school reform because of the teachers' unions, against the death penalty even for extremely dangerous criminals, and against the War on Terror.
Don't forget that Democrats are also against new power plants too. They want us all to live in the dark so we won't know about their dumb policies.
I think aggressive characters like our "lefty blogger" think that uncovering gay Republicans will disgust social conservatives and change their voting behavior. They might also believe that they are demonstrating hypocrisy and that doing so will motivate Republicans to abandon social conservatism.
I don't think either of these are true. I think they're just delighting in the sheer mean-spiritedness of it.
The other thing they don't realize is by doing this they make the Republican in question a victim (maybe not this particular one but others). This will only make republicans sympathetic towards the politicians in question instead of turn against them because they might lead a life they disagree with. I don't think people would like Hillary so much if Bill hadn't cheated on her, she milks that sympathy for all it's worth.
Heck at this point I'm pretty convinced the House is ALL having sex with their pages anyway - as if it's a perk like they're rock stars. I mean, it seems likely that prominent Democrats ALSO knew and hid it so they could have an October surprise, which makes them as guilty. And he didn't even have sex, unlike my own town's Mel Reynolds who was far more perverted and even tried to arrange a tryst with the original girl and another 15 year old girl.
I want the hearings to start so bad I can taste it. So many impeachable offenses. So little time. Says Doyle
If nothing else this is a reason to vote Republican. Do we want to waste our time on this idiocy while people who are plotting to kill us and destroy our culture are left to their own devices as we indulge in mass navel gazing and scab picking?
In the United States today, somebody like McCain is generally considered center.
Which is a compelling illustration of how far right these maniacs have dragged us.
I mean next thing you know, Ann Coulter will be a regular guest on cable news... oh wait.
The Democrats cannot control their fringe elements who cannot resist the dark. They must devour-- like demons from Dante's Inferno. Republicans will not win so much as the Democrats will lose. It's too bad, because the Republicans are in serious need of serious competition. Allegations of anal sex are not going to win elections. Besides, what does the desire to play Greek sailor have to do with someone's valuing marriage?
Madison Man -- rights trampling? Come on. No one has the right or ever did to call Afghanistan or the Middle East in general without monitoring of intel agencies. I suppose you want the Guantanamo detainees to work onAmerican farms in the South and have drinks in the officers club like their german forebears? Those detainees are being treated better than they deserve and, more importantly, better than any enemy combatants, save for some Germans in WW2, in human history.
Tammy Duckworth's a Major in the NG, but beyond that, I second rogera's thoughts.
Great personal story and a strong candidate for Congress even before the injury.
The Duckworth comment was dreadful. What a nasty little world you inhabit, entirely of your own making.
that is the good dave, or at least better dave :)
double amputee Iraq vet running as a Democrat for Congress. I don't know enough about her to say I'd vote for her, but she has a hell of a personal bio. and that's why doyle's comment was so typical and slimy
http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/free_details.asp?id=19
Since all you delicate people care so much about Tammy Duckworth and the human cost of the Iraq War, here's here campaign page (which accepts contributions).
Show her a little love.
I agree with Doyle - enough of the hypocrisy! Let's out them all: all the closeted gay Democrats, too - after all, they aren't being honest with the public either.
And let's out all of the public officials cheating on their wives or husbands while we are at it. It doesn't matter which party - all of them have undoubtedly made their marriages a public issue by parading their spouses at myriads of events. Now that's hypocrisy.
Does anyone else think that if the Democrats fail to take back the House next month, Doyle's head is just going to explode?
I mean, sadly, I think he's right, they'll take back the House and proceed to spend two years underwriting the GOP's retention of the White House in '08, but I think it would be quite amusing to keep the House just for the sheer comedy of seeing Doyle go absolutely apoplectic over it.
"I want him further humiliated and politically crippled."
That kind of says it all about the ethos of the "loyal opposition."
Besides the fact that Bush is termed out and effectively crippled anyway...It's okay to conduct research in public restrooms and then humiliate a man or humiliate a Mary Cheney because you have decided they are guilty, at least in a theoretical sense, and their humiliation or crippling will serve your greater good. Stalin would be proud!
As Richard Dolan said, this phenomena is a projection of all the Daddy hate/love left unresolved in its practitioners.
Ann,
Brilliant writing as always. I particularly liked this line: They might also believe that they are demonstrating hypocrisy.... Of course, they might think they are demonstrating Republican hypocrisy, but they are instead demonstrating their own hypocrisy. True on two levels. It's an example of one of the things I like about your writing -- the intentional double entendres.
I want the hearings to start so bad I can taste it. So many impeachable offenses. So little time.
The Harry Reid story has all the legs of Tammy Duckworth.
This administration is a cancer
If I sound deranged, you haven't been paying enough attention.
Well, the last statement helps explain the others. But just what is beyond deranged that you would use to describe yourself?
This administration is a cancer that is eating away our government and our national security from the inside.
Just think of all the abuses we know about now, despite the wall of secrecy and no subpoena power to breach it.
What an amazingly apt description of the Clinton years! We survived eight years of Clinton, we'll muddle through eight years of Bush just fine.
Pastor -
Nice sampler.
Call me what you want. Disgusting little puke, Stalinist, traitor... It's up to you. Have fun with it.
Outing...whatever. This is hardly a departure from politics as usual. Different tactic maybe, same smeary idea. I'm bored.
Nice sampler.
They're your words, not mine. I think they speak for themselves.
..and Doyle jumps in right on cue and demonstrates perfectly the mean-spiritedness I attribute this outing business to.
Every time I think I'm overestimating the demented maliciousness of the Left, they prove me wrong. Every time. It's uncanny.
First make fun of a person's infirmities, suffered in the service of her country, and then try to exploit them for political gain.
Nice person you are. Mom must be proud.
When mom gets out of jail, ask her if she's proud of you.
I love the righteous indignation. You're okay with Bush taking us to war on blatant falsehoods, but you're profoundly offended by the recognition of Tammy Duckworth's not having any legs as a result of it. Makes sense to me!
In the other thread, btw, Sloanasaurus commended Ann Coulter for discrediting Max Cleland's service to his country.
Sippican, my mother just got out of the hospital, and she is proud of me.
ronin1516 -
Your fellow samurai was being sarcastic.
I always enjoy the riposte "I have a really good reason for acting like a total jerk," followed up with a play for sympathy/appeal to moral indignation. It's George Bush's fault I made fun of Tammy Duckworth, so it's OK. And my mother was in the hospital, you meanie.
You're just a jerk. It's really no more complicated than that. I'm calling you one. It's that simple.
Why don't you just go to Fark, and leave the adults to talk here?
"But, honestly, I think these creepy, gleeful efforts at outing will only make social conservatives more conservative, and they will continue to look to the Republican party to serve their needs," Ann wrote.
I think Ann really misses the point of what is happening in her post, "Lefty Blooger Outs Senator As Gay."
Since Foleygate broke in the press, a wave of sexual McCarthyism has washed over the swamp at Foggy Bottom. This current outing is not a debate tactic. It is a political pre-emptive strike, to borrow a phrase from the Bush military doctrine, by the left blogosphere to portray the Republican leadership within the Beltway as hopelessly corrupt and hypocritical in its pandering to the value voters within its conservative wing. But how this outing will "make social conservatives more conservative" seems rather absurd. After all, Republicans referred to the anti-war coaltion of netrooters and Kossacks, who aided Ned Lamont in his upset victory over Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary, as political insurgents and Chamberlain appeasers. But the last time I looked at a map of Connecticut, I could not find any city within that state named after Fallujah or Munich. The only way these social conservatives could possibly veer more to the right would be to don brown shirts, lift a stein of dark German lager and join in a chorus of "Deutschland Uber Alles." So the political levee that held back the foul waters around Foggy Bottom began to crack much earlier before this lefty blogger decide to out a Republican senator. Now we have the political equivalent of a Katrina, the political carcass of Foley floating by and probably joined by others, as American voters hold their noses and go to the polls in two weeks.
So I find Ann's characterization of the lefty blogger as "aggressive" to be myopic and naive, given the toxic atmosphere prior to the outing.
Politics, defined by the Republican playbook, has been war by other means. The Republicans have been just as creepy and gleeful in their political attacks on the anti-war netroots and Kossacks. And they perfected the dubious art of Swiftboating: Senator John Kerry in the last presidential election and Representative John Murtha when he came out for a redeployment of American forces in Iraq. Both are decorated Vietnam veterans, who served their country, while President Bush remained behind in the Texas Air National Guard and Vice President Dick "I Had Other Priorities" Cheney received five deferments from the draft that sucked so many hapless working-class and middle-class young men into the vortex of war. Being a Vietnam veteran, who served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam, I assure you that these wounded grunts had other priorities before getting that ominous draft notification from Uncle Sam. Unfortunately, they lacked the poltical connections afforded Bush and Cheney to avoid the draft.
I am not condoning this latest attack and outing but merely trying to give a historical context in the way national politics are practiced. Of course, whether a politican is straight, gay or bi should not enter into his or her career. But those halycon days never existed.
The political water has been foul, muddy and noxious for quite a long time. And denial is more than a river in Egypt.
So tell me something Doyle. I happen to be pretty conservative. My sister is a lesbian. Would you like to go around outing her to my clients? She's actually out but I don't really tell everybody about it because I really don't think anybody cares about, or wants to hear about anything my family does. (I know, it's latent gay bashing on my part that I don't tell clients, "hey, my sister... gayer than Rock Hudson," right?)
But seriously, you could really screw with me cause I'm a big old hypocrite. Hell, I even hug my sister and her partner at family get togethers, in spite of the fact I'm a raving conservative. So would you do it? And if not, why not? Would you be so hypocritical as to think it's okay to do it to somebody in politics, but not some ordinary shmoe? C'mon, maybe you could get me fired, if for nothing else than by creating an embarassing stink in my general vicinity- I don't think I work with any anti-gay bigots, but if I had you ranting outside my office or maybe stalking me around for a while or forwarding nasty innuendo to my clients, I bet it would cause problems. Heck, maybe you could get some Prufrock at my church all fired up about me & my wife going to a couple friends' commitment ceremony. I mean, you're the principled one here and I'm the hypocrite, right, so certainly I must deserve being "outed" for covering up for all these gays in my life, right?
Go ahead, Doyle. It's like chum, and I know you can't help yourself.
I haven't gien the issue that much thought, but intuitively, I think the republican's record matters.
If he panders to the social conservative crowd, votes for anti-gay legislation then out away. And then the issue isn't one of being gay (nothing wrong with that after all) but hypocrisy, which is usually worth reporting.
If he doesn't pander and demonize gays and has a defensible voting record, then let his private life be, a gay republican's has enough problems already.
If you'll notice, the butt of the Tammy Duckworth joke was actually people who believe the Reid story is, or is going to be, a full-blown scandal.
It was only a slight against Tammy if you consider her not having legs a failing of some sort. Of course on the contrary she lost them in military service, which is no shame if you ask me.
I'm personally kind of ambivalent about outing closeted gay politicians. It certainly seems counterproductive and motivated more by anger than any defensible principle. That said, where those gay politicians want to be harbored and protected by the gay community at night and then exploit anti-gay sentiment for their own political benefit by day, I think gay people are legitimately angry and I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for those politicians.
One thing that always confuses me about the whole outing debate is that it doesn't seem that hard to figure out which politicians are gay. Lots of people knew about Foley, and I'm sure lots of DC insiders know about a whole cadre of closeted gay politicos. I'm confused how these closeted gay politicians can manage to maintain a highly public political life and keep their sexuality a secret. And even for political outsiders, it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to make some educated guesses and then do a little investigation. I'm not saying people should out them, I'm just amazed it doesn't happen as a matter of course.
Also, although there's a long history of lefties outing closeted gays, conservatives engage in it to. I've heard plenty of rhetoric from the right that the GOP "big tent" metaphor can't be sustained and gays shouldn't have ever been a part of the big tent anyway. See, e.g., http://www.americansfortruth.com/
Al -
I have no interest in outing your sister or anyone.
I do think that if an elected official makes speeches about protecting the sanctity of marriage (or the Boy Scouts) from the homosexual horde, that person's homosexuality or close relationships with homosexuals are relevant.
If I sound deranged, you haven't been paying enough attention.
What does an investigation get? Nothing, but an indication that Democrats are willing to pursue vindictive questioning for partisan gain.
In the meantime, what's happening elsewhere? Does no one remember what happened while Republicans in the late 90s were panting over Clinton's sex life -- about what was happening underneath?
My fantasy world would be the Democrats would take over and, you know, actually govern. How about doing something to control the outrageous Republican Spending of the past six years. I'd suggest (not that Pelosi will listen to me) a nice big tax break repeal to fund the Iraqi war. All the Republicans that vote against it? Run ads in their districts saying they don't support the war on terror. How about cleaning up the culture of corruption in DC that has flourished while Republicans have been in control? How about coming up with an idea to end the Iraq Debacle?
Pursuing Bush this late in his lame-duck Presidency -- and make no mistake, if the House/Senate turn, he'll be exceedingly lame -- will do nothing but backfire on the Democratic Party and will guarantee electoral failure (nationally, at least) in '08.
Ann, do you think Ken Blackwell's campaign suggesting publicly that his Democratic opponent is gay will backfire? Is that creepy enough for you?
Ann Althouse
I'm not sure how you are qualified to comment on "slimy outings" of anyone, when on the front page of your blog, you had a link to Instawanker, who had a link to the ghouls at Pajamas Media, who linked to the freak that outed one of the Foley pages. You were advised of it twice on this blog, and ignored it. Guess it wasn't creepy or gleeful 2 weeks ago huh.
And I went to this "lefty bloggers" website, and found absolutely nothing that would indicate his is on the left at all.
Where did you get that from?
And I am still waiting for any actual evidence of the alleged gayness, other than anonymous hearsay. You seem to have made your judgment, though.
Reid left a paper trail a mile wide, despite efforts to "accidentally" conceal it. I'll wait until the IRS weighs in on this one to see if it has "legs" or not. Maybe it's all a big political witch hunt as you seem to believe, but again, how does that differ from the slimy allegation of gay hypocrisy? Reid accuses the GOP of being corrupt to the core on a nearly daily basis, but doesn't even know the ethics rules well enough to keep his own affairs in order? Apparently it's all just politics, and that makes it peachy keen.
And yes, shame on me for forcing your Duckworth comment. Clearly my fault.
At the risk of distracting people from the troll-feeding that seems to be the reason that most people post here, I'd like to ask why people are so offended by these tactics. Assuming that these charges are true (which I know is a pretty big assumption, but let's just assume that for the sake of argument), this isn't some staffer who's in a stable gay relationship and prefers to keep his partner out of the public eye-- this is a major figure who's taken every possible anti-gay stance and is engaging in some seriously risky and disgusting behavior in public places. Shouldn't his colleagues and constituents know about his hypocrisy, poor judgement and contempt for marriage?
"charges"?
Either you think it's wrong to be gay or to be consistent, you've got to out every adulterer. Are we playing that game?
Doyle, you are the poster boy for unlimited constraints in free speech. I was a medical corpsman in Vietnam and treated wounded grunts, who had suffered horrific injuries like Tammy Duckworth did in Iraq.
Your Duckworth analogy was a self-defeating gesture and revealed the type of person that you are, as other bloggers have pointed out in their commentaries.
I defend your right to free speech but I also think you will rue the day that you made your analogy.
Lighten up, George.
It could have been worse. She could have been brain damaged and run as a Republican.
Still waiting on the Althouse/Reynolds denunciation of Ken Blackwell, for creepily "outing" his Democratic candidate. You know, an actual Republican candidate for a major office, not an obscure blogger.
Still waiting for the prediction that said outing by a major candidate will hurt the GOP.
(crickets)
Ann Althouse
I'm not sure how you are qualified to comment on "slimy outings" of anyone, when on the front page of your blog, you had a link to Instawanker, who had a link to the ghouls at Pajamas Media, who linked to the
...who had another link to another link to another link to someone I don't like!
I've heard of guilt by association, but usually it ends at one degree.
You also likely have no clue about the past re: Pajamas Media and Ms. Althouse. I suggest you do a bit of reading on that subject before you comment
I don't know who Ken Blackwell is or what you're referring to, but if you think I'm going to delete Instapundit from my blogroll, you're crazy.
Word verification: suvbkobi. Dressing up in classic Japanese garb to go out in an oversized vehicle to drive up for some fast food.
Ken Blackwell is the Republican running for governor of Ohio and he took some flack for suggesting that his Dem opponent might be gay based on his lack of offspring and unusual living arrangements with his wife.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060729/news_1n29email.html
Blue Texan is absolutely right of course.
Blackwell is Republican Ken Blackwell, candidate for Ohio Governor. Blackwell is the current Ohio Secretary of State, and was Bush's campaign chairman in Ohio for the 2004 election.
Not only is the Blackwell campaign insinuating--without any basis--that his oppoonent is gay, but the Ohio Republican party is joining in. See the quotes in this article, attributable to John McClelland, spokesman for the Ohio Republican Party.
"Where was Frances?'' McClelland said of the candidate's wife. "Voters should be able to look at it and make their own decision. We're not going to sit here and say whether or not we think Ted Strickland has a certain preference. It's just not our business. Our job is to try to win elections."
So, what is worse, Professor Althouse--a blogger outing someone or a candidate for Senate and a spokesman for his party "outing" someone?
And which example says more about the mainstream of one party versus the other, especially given the role of both Blackwell and McLelland versus the role of this blogger?
What does that have to do with me? I'm not vouching for him.
I assume the point of bringing Blackwell up is to show that its not just so-called lefty bloggers who engage in attempts to embarass politicians with allegations of homosexuality, any condemnation of outing should apply to anyone engaging in it, and the lefty blogger outings may actually be less contemptible than some of the same business from the right.
"charges"?
Either you think it's wrong to be gay or to be consistent, you've got to out every adulterer. Are we playing that game?
Nonsense.
What's being alleged here (and again, I'm taking it with an enormous grain of salt in the absence of some real evidence) is anonymous sex in a public place-- something that's illegal, disgusting, dangerous and very rude to anybody who's just gotten off of the train and really has to go. This is behavior that pretty much everyone (including this fairly adventurous gay man) will agree is not entirely private and is evidence of some serious deficiencies of character and judgement. I'd also argue that gay public figures have a special duty to be honest and upstanding in order to provide role models for gay and lesbian young people (who frequently aren't going to have them in their personal lives), but I don't think you have to agree with that to agree with me that it's fair for this to be public knowledge.
Additionally, this is a figure who has a uniformly anti-gay voting record, and an extreme one-- he opposes job discrimination protection for gays and is for the marriage amendment, both measures that plenty of opponents of gay rights have problems with.
I don't think that this is equivalent to 'outing every adulterer'. This is closer to the Lewinsky affair-- if Bill Clinton had based his career on opposing adultery.
Professor Althouse,
Well, are you as outraged at Blackwell as you are at this blogger? Does your concern only apply to one blogger engaging in this kind of behavior, or do you think everyone should avoid this kind of behavior? What does it say about you and your party that such mainstream leaders of your party would engage in behaviour that you find creepy?
On balance, isn't it much more significant that a constitutional office holder would engage in this kind of smear campaign than a blogger? Isn't it much more significant that a state-level spokesman for a major party would engage in this kind of smear campaign than a blogger?
Or do you only find things "creepy" when they are done by your opponents? That is why the question is being asked.
By the way, I don't know what is more damning of your value as a blogger--that you don't know who Blackwell is, or that you pretend to not know. He was prominently on the American stage during the 2004 elections because of the concerns about voting problems in Ohio, and his current race for Governor has had significant coverage because of this.
I think aggressive characters like our "lefty blogger" think that uncovering gay Republicans will disgust social conservatives and change their voting behavior. They might also believe that they are demonstrating hypocrisy and that doing so will motivate Republicans to abandon social conservatism.
I don't think the motivation is to change the republican voters; it's more to use the voters (and the more-or-less anti-gay society as a whole) to punish the republican office-holders. I wouldn't even be sure that the idea is to punish republicans so that more democrats will be elected. It's righteous fury, not political calculation, or maybe it's righteous fury making something with debatable long term political utility feel like a rational political calculation.
It also seems quite likely to me that Republican voters are more likely than Democratic voters to consider homosexuality itself (as opposed to hypocrisy or lies about sexuality) to be a moral failing that makes voting for a homosexual difficult if not impossible. So outing to punish seems like a viable short term strategy, ugly though it might be.
The same strategy backfired last year when both Edwards and Kerry outed Mary Cheney during the debates.
You clearly need to look up "outing" in a dictionary. Mary Cheney has been out for years. She worked for Coors in a public role as their liaison with the gay community. She lived openly with her partner. She was not in the closet. Kerry and Edwards did not out her. They tried to use her in a clumsy fashion, but that's not outing.
Wait a minute...
What everyone seems to be missing in their rush to defend Craig's actions as merely protected 'Private Consensual Behavior" is the troubling allegation that at least some of this activity happened in a public place-mainly public restrooms. A place any kid could have walked into and witnessed something they might not be prepared to deal with.
If that is true and Craig had been caught, in many jurisdictions he would have been arrested. So his behavior is similar to Foleys. It is illegal. If prosecuted and convicted, Craig would also have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. In most parts of the country there are scores of men who have criminal records for engaging in the same behavior as Craig reportedly engaged in. I don't see anyone rushing to defend their behavior as "private".
Ann Althouse (says)
“I would like to see Republicans abandon social conservatism”
No she doesn’t- {or shouldn’t}
Social Conservatism represents our collective ethical heritage. It is the complex knitting of our traditions, faith, & morals into a comprehensive social fabric.
If Republicans were to abandon social conservatism – it would in affect have no voice in the public square. The amorality of the counterculture would have defacto control over ALL elements of our society.
It’s precarious enough with so few elements of the dominate culture reflecting this collective ethical heritage. But to assert that these humane understandings also lose their political home is to assert that it has no real value.
It does.
That 70% of the DailyKos readership cares more about hurting Republicans than about being decent human beings is not exactly a shocker. If anything, it is a bit surprising that the numbers are that low.
"... such mainstream leaders of your party..."
You're talking to me? I'm not going to bother to read what you write since you're making assumptions about me. Totally sloppy and stupid.
Well, are you as outraged at Blackwell as you are at this blogger?
I can't speak for Ann, who isn't even eligible to vote for Ohio's governor, but I am quite outraged. I will be voting against a Republican for the first time in 27 years.
The irony here is that, as a homosexual Republican Congressman is more likely to be socially liberal on issues than a hetero Republican..."outings" like this will only serve to push out those Republicans that the left may be able to work with (either by electing a more socially-Conservative successor, or by preventing otherwise-electable candidates from entering the race) long-term.
For the record: Predicting that the Republicans lose ~10 seats in November, but retain both houses of Congress. The pollsters have been predicting a Democrat takeover of the Legislature since 1996...no reason for them to get it right this time either.
Dear God, don't be so obstuse. I am talking about Blackwell.
Look, if you simply don't want to condemn Blackwell, don't, but don't be squirrely about it. It is embarassing for you.
Charles -
The Divine Ms. Althouse won't hear you kindly if you fail to recognize her immaculate nonpartisanship.
That's something only partisan liberals do. (For some reason, Republicans seem to get it.)
She used to vote for Democrats all the time, dotchaknow. Now she's just disenchanted.
Rogers alleges that Senator Craig, on numerous occasions, engaged in homosexual sex in Union Station. His proof? Anonymous partners who independently identified the Senator's unique equipment, ala Corkscrew Willie. The charges might be true, but I have my doubts.
As noted in comments, if true, the charges may well be criminal, and so to corroborate, the witnesses would have to incriminate themselves. As a "journalist," Rogers might argue that he has to protect his sources. Said another way, he might just as easily have made the whole damn thing up, anonymous sources and all.
Second, it strikes me that a man who engages in homosexual sex in Union Station is incredibly reckless, the kind of man who would have a consistent track record of reckless behavior. There ought to be quite a bit of evidence out there. Where is it?
My guess is that Rogers' made the whole smear up.
You're talking to me? I'm not going to bother to read what you write since you're making assumptions about me. Totally sloppy and stupid.
I will assume you since you didn't denounce the outing of the page, and in fact provided links to it from your blog, that you are in favor of it? My post was not an assumption, but fact.
BJK--
You might want to follow the links. This particular Senator is being outed precisely because he is a social conservative.
I don't care if Althouse voted for Howdy Doody, Barney Frank, or Barney Fife in the past. Her political leanings are crystal clear to me. And, even if they weren't, this posting is completely partisan, and all Blue Texan and I are trying to establish is whether Althouse extends her scolding to the leaders of the Republican party as easily as she does to a blogger.
It speaks volumes to me that she is squirreling out of a direct answer to the question. Somewhere in that addled brain of hers she has a vague idea that she has been exposed.
By the way, it was Blue Texan's blog that got me over here. His original post has a litany of Republican hypocrisies in this regard.
Well, I think abandoning social conservatism has been part of the problem. The outing just confirms my opinion of the left in particular and the modern Democratic party as people who would sell their souls for an election. It is betrayal of themselves, and sadly, not surprising. But because of it, I am voting a straight Republican ticket for the first time in my life.
Trey
"I don't know who Ken Blackwell is."
Speaking of "stupid and sloppy," before holding up some obscure "lefty blogger" as a Sign of the Left's Uncivil Behavior That Will Create A Backlash Against The Democrats, you might want to check into the behavior of actual Republican politicians and actual campaigns.
You know, for your own education, so you don't look stupid and sloppy on your blog covering national politics.
Geebus.
I agree with Joseph when he says "where those gay politicians want to be harbored and protected by the gay community at night and then exploit anti-gay sentiment for their own political benefit by day, I think gay people are legitimately angry and I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for those politicians."
I don't support outing closted officials just to say "hey, that guy's gay and a Republican!" But closeted gays who join in the witchhunt and work to deny other gay people their rights, to help hound gay people out of the military? They don't deserve my sympathy.
That being said, I don't see any actual meaningful strategy in outing anyone. It's certainly not about influencing social conservatives; they're not going to leave the GOP, and they don't give a damn about the anti-gay hypocrisy of closeted gay officials. Pretty much all the comments here that find outing outrageous are from folks already happily voting GOP. I don't think it pushes anyone from one side to the other, in effect.
The outing just confirms my opinion of the left in particular and the modern Democratic party as people who would sell their souls for an election.
I would propose that a gay politician who hides in the closet and supports anti-gay legislation has sold his soul to win an election.
I think one thing commenters here are overlooking is that the whole outing debate is really a debate within the gay community and its an exercise that liberals in general aren't really engaging in. Gay liberals out closeted gay public figures because they are angry at those people for taking what they perceive as anti-gay stands, and to some extent just for being closeted period. Right or wrong, the motivation is venting of personal anger, not engaging in political strategy on behalf of the Democrats.
So, I think condemnation of outing from a political perspective should be aimed at GAY liberals who are shooting themselves in their political feet by engaging in this practice, not liberals or Democrats in general, who, whatever opinions they have on the subject, are not the ones deciding whether or not to out this or that politician.
FYI: the correct link for the poll at DailyKos is:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/17/174357/85
It sounds ridiculous at first…but, just because someone has sex with men doesn’t make him “gay”.
Perhaps he’s looking for easy, anonymous (& cheap) sex. Perhaps the very deviant nature of the act gives it an extra thrill otherwise absent from his sex life. Perhaps the person in question is struggling with this demon and will ultimately end up in healthy heterosexual relationships.
If Jim McGrevey can find out he’s “gay” after years of heterosexual relationships (indeed marriage & kids) Why cant someone find out their ultimately straight after years of “closeted” gay sex?
And what of this married & kids phenomena – were/are they not aroused by their wives? Missing from these analysis our any reference to “bi-sexuality”.
I think this is telling, bi-sexuality just confuses the leftist simplistic dialectic when it comes to sex and homosexuality. They like the idea that there are thousands of “gay” men hiding out in the “closet” , who need to be exposed, dragged through the mud & converted to the gay activist cause.
Ultimately I think its shame for their own lifestyle causing them to want to drag everyone down to their own level.
Ultimately I think its shame for their own lifestyle causing them to want to drag everyone down to their own level.
So you think that people who have lifestyles based on honesty criticize liars who have sex in toilets because they're ashamed of their lifestyles?
Townleybomb
Yes...(anonymous sex is not uncommon among men) - but out gay men hate the supposed hypocrisy.
Its not like they a railing against public sex acts.
One detail that I forgot about this whole issue is that Mike Rogers is the guy who tried to get Gaypatriot fired for his blog. Which to my mind mind argues pretty strongly in favor of assuming this story is just another piece of sleazy McCarthyism unless there's some actual proof offered.
Blue Texan:
Speaking of "stupid and sloppy," before holding up some obscure "lefty blogger" as a Sign of the Left's Uncivil Behavior That Will Create A Backlash Against The Democrats, you might want to check into the behavior of actual Republican politicians and actual campaigns.
You know, for your own education, so you don't look stupid and sloppy on your blog covering national politics.
Eh, I don't think Blackwell counts as national politics, and with any luck, he never will. Something that I and my fellow Ohioans need to face from time to time: nobody outside Ohio cares about Ohio. Unless a presidential election is on the line, of course, which it isn't.
Honestly, how closely do you follow state level politics in the 49 states you don't live in? If you're in Texas, do you have any idea what the big issues are in Wisconsin, where Ann lives? Ann talks about Wisconsin politics from time to time, and I just tune out.
By all accounts, Blackwell's going to lose by a large margin anyway.
I will assume you since you didn't denounce the outing of the page, and in fact provided links to it from your blog, that you are in favor of it? My post was not an assumption, but fact.
What ridiculous logic. Can I assume that you are in favor of Jim Sensenbrenner's re-election because you've not voiced an opinion against him? Why, may I ask, are you for the expansion of Interstate 99 in Pennsylvania when it's resulted in such catastrophic acid drainage into Jimmy Carter's favorite central Pennsylvania Trout Stream?
townleybomb, I hadn't made that connection about Mike Rogers; thanks. That's a good reason to be circumspect about his motives. Joseph also makes a very good point, that "outing" isn't a liberal, or a Democrat, strategy. In fact, here we're talking about one blog, one person, with disputable motives. I'm not going to get overwrought about how this affects the Democratic party when it's not about the party.
Meanwhile, the Blackwell campaign's strategy remains uncriticized by the conservatives in this thread, as does the House race in North Carolina where the GOP challenger Vernon Robinson spent a recent debate trying to paint his Democratic opponent, Rep. Brad Miller, as gay because he is childless--Miller's wife had a hysterectomy.
Nothing in this thread today changes the perception that the GOP is at its core anti-gay. Liberals, gays, and Democrats don't need to resort to scorched-earth strategies like widespread outing to establish that fact.
rogera, I'm so sorry to be the one to disenchant you. Now that Christmas is on the way, I might have another little shocking letdown to share with you. You haven't been working too hard on that wish list to "Santa," have you?
I have a friend who is a landlord in the gentrified neighborhood east of Capitol Hill. He has a pretty good idea which of the influential dems renting his apartments and houses are closeted gays or bisexuals - he lives in an apartment in one of the larger buildings he rents and keeps an eye on who goes in and out. Why shouldn't I encourage him to get in touch with some sleazoid blogger who is likely to cooperate - Wonkette comes to mind - and out these folks? Sure, it might destroy marriages and lives and political careers, but it seems to me if you're cheering the outing of closeted Republican pols because of their hypocrisy, their families and careers don't matter to you anyhow, and opposing something like this would be by hypocrisy on your part. And since fighting hypocrisy comprises the whole of your argument favoring outing gay Republicans, even the ones that maybe aren't gay, how can you possibly oppose it?
I wouldn't actually encourage my friend to out anybody because I think it's scummy, vile behavior. But given the fact that all Republicans are rich cigar-smoking real estate moguls, my friend can't possibly be the only D.C. area landlord who knows about this kind of thing.
“Nothing in this thread today changes the perception that the GOP is at its core anti-gay. Liberals, gays, and Democrats don't need to resort to scorched-earth strategies like widespread outing to establish that fact.”
The problem with this understanding is the blasé way “anti-gay” is bandied about. If pro-gay means utter capitulation to both the entire gay agenda & the present (nonsensical) idea of what “gay” is…. Then both parties seem reluctant to embrace these understandings.
As I pointed out in my post above…. Human sexuality is deeply more complex than the way its portrayed by the cultural left & its efforts to politicize homosexuality for the maximum impact in its agenda of identity politics.
What ridiculous logic. Can I assume that you are in favor of Jim Sensenbrenner's re-election because you've not voiced an opinion against him? Why, may I ask, are you for the expansion of Interstate 99 in Pennsylvania when it's resulted in such catastrophic acid drainage into Jimmy Carter's favorite central Pennsylvania Trout Stream?
Huh? I've asked Ann 4 times now, why she had Instapundit link on her front page. This link went to Pajamas Media's website that linked to Wild Bill, who outed the page. (after she was notified twice)
Since Ann didn't respond, I correctly assumed she endorsed outing pages.
A non-response sometimes is a response. No big whup here.
What the hell are you talking about with Sensenbrenner and Jimmy Carter's favorite trout stream?
It's quite possible that a closeted homosexual would think homosexuality is wrong, and publicly and loudly support anti-homosexual laws, while privately giving in to what he sees as weakness and temptation and engaging in homosexual acts. Just like an alcoholic can condemn alcoholism or a gambling addict can advocate for laws against gambling.
I think that one sign of intelligent debate is when the participants acknowledge that ideas are separate from people, and that ideas are not impeached by the behavior of the people who advocate them. It shouldn't make any difference whether Craig is homosexual or not, with regard to his policy proposals. His personal behavior is irrelevant. The only kind of hypocrisy that would be relevent is if he advocated one policy and voted for another. There is no hypocrisy involved if Craig condemns homosexuality and yet engages in it. He can condemn something and think it wrong and still do it. The fact that he does it doesn't mean he thinks it's right.
So, liberal claims that this is about hypocrisy are unconvincing. This is a last-minute dirty political trick of exactly the kind that liberals always claim Republicans are going to spring in October.
B.P. Beckley, you raise a reasonable point about statewide races not necessarily being national news, but in fact Blackwell has been well known among political watchers at least since 2004 because of his role as Secretary of State in Ohio--and chairman of Bush's Ohio campaign--in a year that Ohio voting got a lot of attention. In 2004 alone, Blackwell was mentioned prominently in 28 articles in the New York Times--a paper that Professor Althouse is on record as reading regularly.
This year as well, Ohio elections have received a great deal of attention outside of Ohio. A search for "Kenneth Blackwell" finds 28 mentions in the Times and "Ken Blackwell" 12 mentions (some of which are likely redundant).
So, yes, Professor Althouse's professed ignorance of Blackwell is significant.
To me, the shallowness of this post--and Professor Althouse's petty refusal to answer a reasonable question about it--proves how little value a blog like this has--when a blog is so completely partisan you can even predict what the author will say after a while. What is especially telling, at the end of the day, is that Althouse takes a straightforward request to balance her narrow, partisan scolding and dismisses it in a weird, slightly devious, and, well, pathetic way. Her mock indignation over my assuming her party affiliation is precious. If she really were nonpartisan, she would not get so worked up.
Well, I've asked you twice now why you're in favor of Sensenbrenner's re-election, and the pollution of streams in Pennsylvania, and all you claim is ignorance. Why aren't you voicing an opinion against the Representative from eastern WI and the pollution in Pennsylvania? It must be because you're for it.
Nothing in this thread today changes the perception that the GOP is at its core anti-gay
Although I don't agree with the way Elizabeth characterizes this, I think she is generally correct. The GOP is not the most friendly place if you are gay and especially if you are gay and want gay marriage.
If you are gay, however, and also believe in the free market, and you believe in personal responsibility and a strong defense, the democratic party is a yucky place to be also. What do you do? I think Democratic operatives are trying to argue that being gay trumps everything else.... that seemed to be Andrew Sullivan's response to Bush and the whole Gay marriage debate. In the end however, these democratic operatives really only want the gay vote to help them install socialism and cultural equality.
Is the gay vote in play? Maybe it is.
This is why I think Republicans should favor Civil Unions. I think it is a fair compromise. It would give gay couples all the same contractual rights and economic benefits as marriage, while acknowledging at the same time that "gay marriage" it is not the same as the historical traditional institution of marriage.
Mark, thanks for bringing up the inevitable analogy of homosexuality to alcoholism, gambling, addiction, etc. That's always a big crowdpleaser.
Fen,
Since I never mentioned Diebold or any other particulars of the Ohio voting, that is your own projection. Good luck with it, but it has nothing to do with me. I am sure you were really thrilled to type "moonbat" twice though. Good boy! Now go pick a lollipop from the doofus basket.
Sloan, to defend Andrew Sullivan a bit, he's very critical of Bush on a whole host of issues, especially national security and Iraq. I don't think Bush's gay-baiting was necessarily the tipping point for Sullivan.
I don't purport to "cover national politics." I just read what I read and talk about whatever catches my attention. You'd be suprised how many local candidates I can't name -- notably -- and I'm not ashamed to admit it -- the person who's running against Senator Kohl and the person who's running against Tammy Baldwin. They haven't made an impression on me. As I've said before, I might not even vote.
So, uh, Doyle. I notice three or four other people have pointed out that "It's in the economic interest of middle class people to vote Democratic." appears prima facie nonsensical to them.
Are you ever going to get around to telling us why the middle class should be voting Democrat out of economic interest? (And do I win a prize if the explanation involves "false consciousness"?)
I would think that, if anything, "economic interest" might drive them to vote Libertarian (though perhaps not LP)... but Democrat? Seriously, now?
Sloan, we do disagree over details, but I commend your analysis and thoughtfulness.
I don't belong to either party because the Democrats take the gay vote for granted, and the GOP has sold its soul to social conservatives. I have voted for qualified GOP candidates on the local and state level when I was persuaded they were not social conservatives, or when I believed the mission of the office in question wouldn't allow for social conservative activism on their part. I've voted for third-party candidates over Democrats when I felt the Democrat was too conservative or unethical or otherwise unsuitable. Obviously I vote Democrat more often than anything else because even with numerous flaws, my interests--and my interests go well beyond sexuality--are more often represented there. But I'd like to see changes in both parties.
I think a lot more than civil unions would have to change in the GOP for a significant portion of the gay vote to be in play, but it's certainly a key issue.
Well, I've asked you twice now why you're in favor of Sensenbrenner's re-election, and the pollution of streams in Pennsylvania, and all you claim is ignorance. Why aren't you voicing an opinion against the Representative from eastern WI and the pollution in Pennsylvania? It must be because you're for it.
I know you're not this dense.
1. Ann claims the outing of Craig was creepy, slimy and gleeful by a "lefty blogger"
2. Ann had a link on the front page of this blog (not blogroll) that with 2 clicks, you could get to the website of Wild Bill, who outed one of the pages.
3. Ann was advised at least twice, and decided to leave it up.
So who is slimy, creepy, or gleeful?
Why don't you get this?
"It's quite possible that a closeted homosexual would think homosexuality is wrong, and publicly and loudly support anti-homosexual laws, while privately giving in to what he sees as weakness and temptation and engaging in homosexual acts. Just like an alcoholic can condemn alcoholism or a gambling addict can advocate for laws against gambling."
Its an excellent analogy and deserves more respect. We know Mark Foley has stated that he was molested as a child by another man. It is quite common for pedophiles/pederasts to have experienced this type of trauma themselves as young people. I have noted that he has not taken the I’m gay approach of a McGreevy. Is it wrong that people with unwanted sexual desires want to eliminate/minimize such desires, and condemn the popular gay culture as condoning such acts? At the same time they could be engaging in such behavior occasionally while also feeling proper shame. Is the answer simply to say “hey you hypocrite, stop hiding and go have a full time “out” public gay persona?
This is simplistic and politically motivated stance. The AMA wont condemn reparative therapy as an ethics violation for a reason. People have a right to define their sexuality in ways other than gay activists find politically palatable.
Fen, call it self-righteous if you want, but I can't muster anything but pity for gay people who hate themselves for being gay. I won't bolster their sense of shame, and I won't collude in their projecting that shame onto me and other gay citizens.
Charles--
If you think that the fact that this blog doesn't cover exactly the subject matter you think it should makes it so lacking in value, you should probably stop posting here and concentrate on your own.
I don't support outing closted officials just to say "hey, that guy's gay and a Republican!" But closeted gays who join in the witchhunt and work to deny other gay people their rights, to help hound gay people out of the military?
Oh, for pity's sake. He's the senator from Idaho, not the senator from Homosexaslovakia.
The people of Idaho are strongly against gay marriage and gays in the military. There is therefore absolutely nothing wrong with Craig voting that way, even if (a) he's gay (which thus far there's no evidence of) and (b) he is personally in favor of gay marriage and gays in the military (which not all gays are and which, again, there's no evidence of).
Exposing people's sex lives simply because you don't like the fact that they're doing what they were elected to do is reprehensible.
"They tried to use her in a clumsy fashion, but that's not outing."
Elizabeth:
Just when I was about to give up because of the hate being spewed out here, your realism and gentility come through like a breath of fresh air. Bless you.
Garage: You're saying that Althouse is required to denounce something because she linked to someone who linked to a site that linked to someone who did it?
You say she was 'informed' of it twice.
Got links to where that happened, and of her original link, so we can all see who and how and the context, and then decide if we think it's worth anything but mocking you about?
Or was her original link simply her blogroll with Reynolds on it?
If so, you have negative legs to stand on here, as she's not suggesting people have a duty to denounce things linked to by people linked to people's blogrolls.
Because, you see, that's crazy.
I actually saw campaign literature for Dave Magnum, who is running against Tammy Baldwin, for the first time yesterday. It listed things he wanted to do, and I found the list bland and but for some minor tweaks indistinguishable from what Tammy wants to do. (Provide affordable health care, keeping children safe, seal the borders, yadda yadda yadda). He has done very little to brand himself this time around.
As for who's running against Sen. Do-Nothing MoneyBags, I've no clue either.
Oh, and garage? Thank you for making my point that it's ridiculous to ask someone to do something, and then claim that inaction means support.
Now I remember the Blackwell thing from 04. Didn't retain the name.
Fenisadoofus,
I knew you would come up with a lame reply, but that is really hopelessly lame. Why, for example, would you include an outright lie (that I said anything about Ohio having been stolen)? Are you that unconfident in your ability to argue a point?
For the record, I happen to think Bush won 2000 and 2004 fair and square. But go ahead and continue to project your bizarre ideas onto me if you want, and you even have my permission to call me a "Moonbat" three times each post.
Raise your game, brother, or be ignored.
No wonder Althouse mentioned in another thread that you were an excellent commenter. You are as full of inane non sequiturs as she is.
Wait, could you be a sock puppet?
"call it self-righteous if you want, but I can't muster anything but pity for gay people who hate themselves for being gay."
Its not self-righteous, its delusional. In just one instance (& one that splits the difference with homosexual ideology on the subject)
Suppose the person in question is a bi-sexual man who has never had a relationship with a woman but wants to. Or suppose the man is a heterosexual who fell into having sex with men because of loneliness or depression or the sense of a-spree décor he found among homosexuals?
I cant muster anything but pity for homosexuals who have didactic and simplistic understanding of human sexuality to fit their political motives.
Madison Man
Heh. You're good people, and fellow Madisonian, so we're golden. But I know you what my point was...
Fitz, I don't argue that people aren't free to define their own sexuality. But if in doing so they seek office and in office seek to deny my rights because of how I define my sexuality, I will take issue with them, including their rationale of shame.
Fen, the pity is my response to people in the closet. They are free to reject or accept it.
What some leftists seem unable to stomach is people who belong to identified classes that remain ignorant of their false consciousness.
And it's their duty to point out how gays, blacks, the poor, minorities, and the middle class should be voting; for, rather than against, their interests.
There are no real standards of behavior, except against the seeming hypocrisy of attempting or appearing to support certain moral codes yet failing to abide by them.
Others call that sin.
Fitz, you're the one with delusions. I've never argued that there isn't a wide range of definition for sexuality, nor that people aren't free to define their own. I certainly don't look at a bisexual person and think "closeted gay." I don't believe that having had sex with one or both genders defines one as a specific sexual orientation. But you're living in lala-land if you haven't met people who are by all actions queer, but live a public facade of heterosexuality to avoid social judgment, loss of privilege, financial or career problems, or other aspects of anti-gay bigotry. Rather than stand up to the bigotry, they hide. I can understand that in some cases. Fear is a powerful motivator. Some of them buy into the beliefs that being gay is a sickness, or evil. That's a terrible thing, and to wave it off as simply another way of defining one's sexuality is disengenuous.
Mark:
Do you seriously think that an alcoholic public figure who was repeatedly stumbling around drunk in a public place should be immune from criticism? At the very least, he'd be demonstrating poor judgement and irresponsibility, and probably leaving himself open for blackmail. I'd also argue that he'd have a moral obligation as a public figure to talk about his struggles with the bottle in order to warn others away from the errors he felt he'd be making. At any rate, that'd be behavior that voters should be aware of.
I'd also argue that ideas are not entirely separate from people-- that the recurring spectacle of anti-gay public figures engaging in sordid homosexual activity is evidence that homosexuality is deeply ingrained and that the refusal to openly accept it is irresponsible and perverted.
Fenrisulven:
Look! I'm discussing homosexuality without feigning righteous indignation or claiming bigotry. Do you think it'll ever be possible to discuss it without illiterates coming out of the woodwork to mutter about 'the gay agenda'?
"I don't purport to "cover national politics."
Hilarious. Then what's this about, Ann?
"But, honestly, I think these creepy, gleeful efforts at outing will only make social conservatives more conservative, and they will continue to look to the Republican party to serve their needs."
Can't imagine what category this would fall under other than "national politics."
But I guess what you're really saying is, "I only cover national politics when I'm elevating the actions of totally obscure lefty bloggers as significantly influential over the future of the two national parties."
Just fantastic.
Keep diggin', Ann.
Elizabeth
"But if in doing so they seek office and in office seek to deny my rights because of how I define my sexuality, I will take issue with them"
Depends on what you mean by “rights”. Something tells me your not talking about a right to keep & bear arms, or the right to vote. Your really question begging. A lot of people don’t feel homosexuals deserve special constitutional protections like blacks did. They rightly see them as pursuing a cultural agenda (the normalization & public celebration of homosexuality) through the courts. They have a right to “petition their government for a redress of grievances” but so do social conservatives. When “rights” & “fundamental rights” become code speak for everything from gay history month in our schools to publicly subsidizing homosexual couples we have gone beyond basic civil protections.
You cant have the victory without having the argument. (or if you do…it un-democratic)
Sorry, Fenisadoofus, but you managed to follow one lame comment with one that is even more lame. Your inanity is only trumped by your bizarre projections. You are the one who needs to take a deep breath as you are inventing things that simply are not there. So, enough with you.
Besides, all of this inanity has distracted from the basic question, which Professor Althouse and the regulars here are too happy to ignore. Are Blackwell's actions as bad as the blogger's? And do Blackwell's actions, inasmuch as they were taken by a statewide candidate (and the state party official I quoted above) reflect more on his party than the blogger's actions do on the Democractic party?
Pretty simple questions, with alarmingly simple answers that this crowd happily ignores. Indeed, it is striking how invested Fenisdoofus and Professor Althouse are in the various deflections that they have raised. Why not just answer the question?
You're a Moonbat because you were aware of Blackwell. I was aware of Blackwell too, but I'm not a Moonbat, because thats an insult.
/*wingnut logic
“But you're living in lala-land if you haven't met people who are by all actions queer, but live a public facade of heterosexuality to avoid social judgment, loss of privilege, financial or career problems, or other aspects of anti-gay bigotry.”
I’m not living in any land but this one. No I have never met the person you describe. I don’t know what you mean by “people who are by all actions queer” I have meet effeminate men who are straight and married and masculine women who are the same but I don’t think of them as closeted queers. Its seems to me homosexuals are more welcomed then ever, and there is no real reason left to be “closeted” except the very real sense these individuals may have that it is both right and possible to overcome their desires and live healthy heterosexual lives.
Fitz, it's true that over time, I know fewer and fewer closeted gays. That's a wonderful thing, and we can thank the gay rights movement for that outcome.
In your comment I sense a support for the movement to reprogram gay people to live "healthy heterosexual lives." Am I wrong? If so, I apologize for misreading. But if I'm right, well, it's good to know where you stand. I get the sense likewise from your other recent comment that you go for the strategy of painting equal rights for gay people as "special" rights--is "subsidizing gay couples" what you call gay marriage?
In that topsy turvy world, I'd be called a bigot for pointing out anti-gay bigotry. Have I fallen down a rabbit hole?
No, you're a Moonbat because you've spent the last two years of your online life so engrossed about how Blackwell "stole" Ohio, that you assume everyone knows who he his.
LOL
I claim ignorance. I had no idea who Blackwell was, or even Strickland, until Blue Texan (I think) brought it up today on this thread. I was living in FL in '04, and heard about the OH ruckus, but I doubt I could name 10 Governors off the top of my head.
Ann, more coherent posters please.
Look! I'm discussing homosexuality without feigning righteous indignation or claiming bigotry. Do you think it'll ever be possible to discuss it without illiterates coming out of the woodwork to mutter about 'the gay agenda'?
Ah hell, you were so close - then you had to paint everyone who sees a "gay agenda" as illiterate. Sigh.
I did no such thing.
I did point out that discussions of gay-related issues reliably draw the attentions of gay rights opponents who are pretty obviously driven by bigotry, personal demons or just plain damn-foolishness-- and that they tend to think and speak inelegantly.
Speaking of which, what exactly is the Gay Agenda? That's a phrase that seems to insinuate something that's coordinated and conciously sinsister. I'm certainly not aware of some kind of conspiracy in the gay community, and I'm starting to feel left out!
Ann, more coherent posters please.
Handpick your commenters! Read every website within three clicks of your blog! Make me a sandwich!
Ah, so that's how it works.
Althouse: Some random lefty blogger outed a US Senator. This Creepy Meanness surely means more people will vote Republican.
Blue Texan/Charles: Why aren't you denouncing the Republican candidate for governor in Ohio, Ken Blackwell, for doing the same thing? Will that make more people vote Republican?
Fenrisputz: But Blue Texan, why aren't you denouncing Kos?
You people crack me up.
PS
Fenris, I did, for the record, indicate that outing people was wrong on my blog this AM at 7:30AM. I have not seen, however, any indication from Ann that she believes the establishment Republicans in Ohio (or anywhere else for that matter) are guilty of anything at all, though she went out of her way to shriek and scream at some obscure lefty blogger doing the same thing, and make all kinds of predictions about the consequences.
It's more than a little absurd.
I wrote a comment, but I'm not seeing it, so I will repeat.If Blackwell did what is described here -- I haven't read the actual news stories -- then it's bad and repulsive and worse than what some stupid blogger did. That's obvious.
Blue Texan,
You left out the parts where Fenisadoofus (1) inexplicably says you are obsessed with the Ohio vote in 2004, (2) incorrectly cites ad hominem tu quoque, and (3) types "Moonbat" three times fast until he orgasms.
Also note well that Professor Althouse and her sockpuppet Fenisadoofus are both trying to lamely claim that maybe Blackwell didn't do what he did, even though I linked to an article and there are 114 related articles in Google News. But, yeah, maybe he didn't actually do it. Yeah, I am sticking with that...
If this were Bush, he would be saying, "Heck of a job, Altie!"
Blue texan: Still waiting on the Althouse/Reynolds denunciation of Ken Blackwell
Still waiting on you [since 11:38 AM] and Charles Giacometti [12:39 PM] to denounce Kos and Mike Rogers...
Why are people so intent on getting everyone to denounce people on other websites two or three degrees of hyperlinks away? Or to denounce statements from politicans in (let's face it) obscure races?
The whole conversation has the same sickening, self-aggrandizing, accusatory air of the Clinton impeachment. Personal lives are being ruined to score political points, and most posters are busy talking right past each other to fight off the phantom anti-gay bigots and phantom ranks of the Gay Agenda (TM).
she went out of her way to shriek and scream at some obscure lefty blogger doing the same thing
She referred to "creepy, gleeful efforts at outing" and called them "slimy". If you think that's "shrieking and screaming" it is a miracle you're able to read anything on the Internet without fainting dead away.
and make all kinds of predictions about the consequences
Her predictions, of which there were two, were (a) that outings would make social conservatives more conservative and (b) that they would continue to vote for Republicans. Presumably *Republican* outing of gays would also stir up social conservatives and encourage them to support Republicans. Exposing hidden gays is like exposing hidden Communist sympathizers circa 1950 -- helpful to the Right regardless of WHO does it.
townleybomb:
Do you seriously think that an alcoholic public figure who was repeatedly stumbling around drunk in a public place should be immune from criticism?
Yes, criticize him for irresponsible alcoholism, but don't call him a hypocrite if he also sponsors anti-alcoholism legislation. The person's poor behavior would not mean that he was wrong to condemn alcoholism.
I'd also argue that ideas are not entirely separate from people-- that the recurring spectacle of anti-gay public figures engaging in sordid homosexual activity is evidence that homosexuality is deeply ingrained and that the refusal to openly accept it is irresponsible and perverted.
Is then the recurring spectacle of anti-irresponsible-alcohol-use public figures engaging in sordid drinking activity evidence that alcoholism is deeply ingrained and that the refusal to openly accept it is irresponsible and perverted?
Of course not.
Would you prefer that I say "anti-gay rights" or "hostile to gay equality/gay civil rights"?
"Opposed to the current gay agenda" would be the most accurate way of describing it. "Hostile to gay civil rights" presumes that the things gays are currently being denied (military service and government marriage benefits) ARE civil rights. I don't think they are, and I *want* gay marriage and gays in the military.
That aside, calling Fitz "anti-gay" seems perfectly fair, since he thinks homosexuality itself is bad.
RogerA- I basically agree. It seems to me that Blue Texan is not here to have a conversation but to make a scene, possibly drum up business for Blue Texan's blog, then return there and brag to all of Blue texan's fans that "I showed her!"
Okay, I finally went to that link and see that it wasn't anything Blackwell said:
"The Ohio Republican Party chairman apologized to Rep. Ted Strickland for a GOP e-mail that questioned the lawmaker's sexuality, and the staff member who sent it was fired.... The e-mail, sent July 17 by the state Republican Party's social conservative coordinator, Gary Lankford, attacked Strickland's résumé and alleged piety, and it linked to an Internet post suggesting he and his wife, Frances, are gay.
Ohio GOP officials condemned the message last week and said they disciplined Lankford but didn't fire him. GOP Chairman Bob Bennett on Thursday wrote Strickland to offer “sincere apologies” for the e-mail's “inappropriate suggestions about your private life.” Bennett also said he fired Lankford, a decision Bennett said was delayed because he was sick.
Strickland called the firing “appropriate” but said the e-mail would have gone “quietly under the radar” if the Toledo Blade newspaper hadn't reported it in its Sunday editions. Republican gubernatorial nominee Ken Blackwell paid Lankford $16,000 this spring as a “voter contact consultant.”"
I apologize for assuming Blackwell himself had said these things. What Lankford did was bad, certainly.
Is "Doyle" always this obviously stupid?
Please lift your voice or raise your hand if your voting intentions have changed one iota in the last few weeks.
Ann, I am shocked, shocked I say, that you have not denounced the Republican running for my local water board, as his pedantic tendencies have been well-documented. And where were you while others were expressing their moral outrage upon the discovery that the Democrat running for Sewer commissioner was not only a practicing philatelist but enticing young children to join him?
Not only that, Ronin, but he was actually seen vacillating on the Senate floor.
Is "Doyle" always this obviously stupid?
Yes, usually. What in particular tipped you off?
Ann - It doesn't matter what the facts are, you are guilty because you have a link somewhere on your site to someone who has a link somewhere on their site to someone who has a link... to someone who did something bad, or might have done something bad, or would do something bad if he or she could get away with it.
With that in mind, Blackwell is guilty as sin, as an example to others. It doesn't matter who did what in Ohio, because everyone KNOWS this was planned and authorized by the top person himself, whoever that is [my money is on Rove].
Ben Cardin, of course, is NOT responsible for what his campaign said about Michael Steele. And Phil Angelides is not responsible for stating that Schwarzenneger supported apartheid (despite the fact that the words came out of his own mouth at the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board meeting yesterday).
I think the left has been very crafty in establishing the pretense that every gay think and behave monolithically. Closeted gay(conservative)s are cowards and any gay who doesn't support and vote gay marriage 100% is self-hating and deserves contempt. The road to salvation is before you: Vote Democrat... there's hell to pay if you don't. We'll out you faster than you can say Pat Roberts.
Very effective. There's an ugly disregard for the respect they themselves are supposedly fighting for (not unlike the behavior of a lot of the feminists popping up around here lately!) which stems from militant identity politics. It causes them to behave condescendingly and without compassion to others.
They become as rigid and close-minded as the homophobes/antigays they claim to (and rightfully) despise. "Witchhunts" indeed.
In addition, this is obviously a last-minute political bomb designed to affect the election.
I'm biased, but it seems to me that that seems to be mostly a Democratic/left tactic - the last-minute scandal.
The Rathergate thing, the Bush-had-a-DWI-conviction thing...
Neither side is pure, but the left seems to me particularly bitter and Machiavellian in this way. I chalk it up to the fact that Democrats tend to skew young, and young people are more likely to be immature and think that anything they do is justified and that they're all good and the other side is all evil. Older people tend to have more balance, more experience, and to have become more conservative as a result.
"Why can't you simply address the questions Ann has raised? Why go to such great lengths to avoid it?"
Posting 5 times here is not "going to great lengths to avoid" anything.
Ann has not raised any questions. On the contrary, Ann has stated quite plainly that a single, obscure lefty blogger is a bellwether for national voting trends, while ignoring or being completely oblivious to the same behavior from the establishment Republican party in Ohio, the same party which she says will benefit from the aforementioned lefty blogger's identical behavior.
If you don't see the sheer buffoonery of that, I'm afraid I can't help you.
Ann, the "Blackwell didn't say it, his campaign aparatus did" trick is nice, but no dice. Blackwell has also compared gays to farm animals. I'm sure this will backfire on the GOP, right Ann?
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=2457596
This was available, to anyone who can access Google (including you, Ann):
Strickland said "innuendos" by Blackwell and other Republicans that he is gay and had some sort of sexual relationship with his former aide are "reprehensible.''
"No, I am not gay, although it is none of their business in the first place,'' Strickland said. "I am married to a very wonderful woman and have been for 18 years.''
Blackwell, in the debate Monday, questioned why Strickland would take a 1998 trip to Italy with the aide.
Whew! Just got in and read ALL of the above (currently) 191 comments:
Is there some kind of national divide over "gay" people?
There seems to be a big commotion!
--------------
All wonderment aside, the most serious issue regarding this whole discussion is being overlooked in the disagreement.
Words have meaning. Perverting the generally understood meaning of a word will have far more devastating and unforeseen consequences for everyone, but especially the misusers.
The one word that is more misappropriated, and purposely, beyond it's actual designation is:
HATE
The ones using it to whitewash all of their opponents as being "full of hate" in their motivations are participating in something that makes the word valueless. It will eventually reap them and their like-minded friends a whirlwind of destructive consequences.
Let's call it nature's way of bringing things back into balance.
Mark said:
"In addition, this is obviously a last-minute political bomb designed to affect the election."
Don't forget the LA Times and their "Grope-anator" charges.
I'm really really hoping this backfires on the left
Fenris can't read. I thought he could, but he apparently can't.
Blackwell, in the debate Monday, questioned why Strickland would take a 1998 trip to Italy with the aide.
And it wasn't even Blackwell's "campaign aparatus", it was the state GOP party.
Even better! Blackwell, the ultimate Ohio GOP insider, has no connection whatsoever with the state party. Nope, I'm sure they're not coordinating anything!
Too funny, dude, keep 'em coming. And learn how to read.
"In short, you are a liar and have wasted our time with this"
Absolutely. Really stupid trolling today...
Are you disputing the reporting of the Cincinnati Enquirer, which contains this passage?
Blackwell, in the debate Monday, questioned why Strickland would take a 1998 trip to Italy with the aide.
I'd also argue that ideas are not entirely separate from people-- that the recurring spectacle of anti-gay public figures engaging in sordid homosexual activity is evidence that homosexuality is deeply ingrained and that the refusal to openly accept it is irresponsible and perverted.
Is then the recurring spectacle of anti-irresponsible-alcohol-use public figures engaging in sordid drinking activity evidence that alcoholism is deeply ingrained and that the refusal to openly accept it is irresponsible and perverted?
Of course not.
'Perverted' obviously doesn't apply here, but an alcoholic who doesn't accept that they are unable to hold their liquor and keeps drinking is absolutely being irresponsible.
I'd be very curious to hear you try to explain your equation of homosexuality and alcoholism in less facile terms. Obviously, both involve strong and permanent desires, but that's where it ends. I'm gay, and have been entirely open about it since late adolescence. It's made me happier in every way-- closer to my family and friends, and obviously more satisfied than if I'd just settled into a loveless marriage with some poor woman (I assume that's what you'd prefer I did, right?). That's true of every gay person I know. I've also known a number of closeted gays, and they are uniformly unstable, self-destructive and desparately unhappy. Which option do you think resembles alcoholism more closely?
In the last debate between the two Ohio gubernatorial candidates, Blackwell accused Strickland of supporting pedophilia
Strickland had learned that one of this staffers was a convicted pedophile and kept him on the staff, keeping the conviction secret. As the Democrats taught us during the Foley scandal, Strickland's behavior was monstrous, evil, and deserving of condemnation, possible prison time, removal from public office and possibly horsewhipping.
He was also one of 13 congressmen who didn't join in the condemnation of a study that found adult-child sex is sometimes good for the child. Because of those two things, Blackwell accused him of being soft on pedophilia. But accusing a person of being soft on pedophilia is in no way similar to investigating their private sex lives and publicizing the details.
I'd be very curious to hear you try to explain your equation of homosexuality and alcoholism in less facile terms....[Being 'out'] made me happier in every way-- closer to my family and friends, and obviously more satisfied than if I'd just settled into a loveless marriage with some poor woman (I assume that's what you'd prefer I did, right?).
You presume I think homosexuals need to hide and deny it and try to marry a heterosexual and pretend. Certainly not. I'm glad you're open about who you are and that you're happy.
My point was that the left is calling this Senator a hypocrite for being against gay marriage, while (allegedly) having homosexual interests himself, and that this is an invalid criticism. He may very well strongly believe gay marriage is wrong and may feel his own homosexual impulses are wrong, and yet give into them out of weakness. That is not hypocrisy in any sense that is meaningful for public debate. My point, and I think it stands, is that his personal behaviors do not reflect at all on the truth or falsity of his publicly stated positions. They are above and beyond him as a person. Most of us probably have beliefs about what is right and what is wrong and what ought to be law or not be law that conflict with personal choices we make in moments of weakness, but that doesn't mean what we said was wrong.
Personally, since you bring your own sexual preference into it, I think homosexuality is probably a birth defect caused by a genetic condition, perhaps influenced during development at some point. I don't think homosexual people should be shunned or be made to feel ashamed, but I also don't think we need to change a 5,000 year old tradition to include them when their condition is obviously abnormal. I'm in favor of covenants that allow them to get the legal protections they want, but I'll never go along with pretending that they are "married", and I don't think society should either.
For a good overview of the arguments against homosexual "marriage", see:
http://www.equip.org/free/JAH044.htm
(Note: the argument is made by a Christian web site, but I am not Christian. Another example of how the validity of an argument is independent of the person making it.)
Wow, another lengthy deflection, complete with stereo scolding from the sockpuppet Fenisadoofus ("In short, you are a liar and have wasted our time with this") and Professor Althouse ("Really stupid trolling today."), and still the same fact remains: Blackwell is guilty of the same exact behaviour as the blogger, and this disturbs a certain worldview.
So, why is it so hard for Professor Althouse and her sockpuppet to understand that both sides of the aisle engage in the same nasty tactics? I mean, I learned this when I was about 12--politicians are scum, including, often, the ones who represent your views. Deal with it.
Of course, Althouse burst into tears about some obscure blogger acting out in this way, but seems unable to comprehend that one of her party's leaders did this (well, two actually). Why this denial? It's fascinating really, especially when it is met with these bizarre, petty deflections.
Oh, this is rich!
I went to this article linked by Blue Texan and saw the headline, "Blackwell Compares Gay Couples, Farm Animals."
Of course, if you read what the article says, it's exactly the opposite: Blackwell's point is that the idea of same-sex marriage is contrary to nature, even the nature of farm animals. Here's the quote from the article: "I don't know how many of you have a farming background but I can tell you right now that notion even defies barnyard logic ... the barnyard knows better," said Blackwell referring to the idea of same-sex marriage.
In the next paragraph, Blackwell's press secretary follows up with this:"Part of the function of marriage is to reproduce the human race and same-sex marriage cannot carry out that function."
I would be suprised if a majority of voters in any state had a problem with either of these two statements.
Edward's link gives an overview of the final debate between Blackwell and Strickland. I'm hard pressed to find any lies in what Blackwell said: Strickland did not vote for the measure, but was marked as "present" because he disagreed with some of the wording regarding childhood victims of sexual abuse. That's his right, certainly, but he had to know that not voting to condemn sexual abuse of children was going to come back and haunt him someday.
The business with the aide is a bit weird. From the article:The Democrat reiterated he never knowingly employed anyone in his campaign or congressional office that did not share his same values. But he does acknowledge a former employee was convicted of exposing himself. Briefly, the hell? The employee was convicted of exposing himself, but we shared the same values! I suppose he could blame it all on staff incompetence and failure to do background checks, but with a statement like that, it isn't really going to help all that much.
(I wish people would learn how to embed live links in comments. It's not hard, people. You type an left angle bracket, then: a href=", then paste in the URL, then close quote and right angle bracket. Then you put left angle bracket, a, right angle bracket to close the link.)
Someone doesn't know the meaning of the term "sock puppet." Just because two people can see you're a jackass doesn't me one is the other's puppet. Face reality. You crashed and burned. That was truly stupid. You blew any credibility you migh have hoped to earn.
Fen, there's a different standard of privacy for public and private figures. Polticians are frequently the target of exactly the type of invasive attention you describe. You haven't been reading my comments here if you think I support outing anyone for just any reason; I think outing is a bad strategy and doesn't do anything to change political outcomes. However, I stop short of having sympathy for public figures who outwardly despise gay people and then privately expect gay people to protect them from scrutiny. I feel just as little sympathy for straight lawmakers who trumpet family values while having affairs. When people run for office, they lose some of their privacy. That's hardly news.
Professor Althouse,
I know what a sockpuppet is, and I am being playful. Fenisadoofus is likely some poorly educated shut-in who imagines you are a great intellect--and not you pretending to be someone else.
As to your declaring victory, you can do it, but that doesn't make it so. Blackwell is doing exactly what the blogger is doing, but because he is a member of your party, you can't face facts.
The real conclusion here is not that Blue Texan and I somehow blew it or lost credibility. The real conclusion here is that you don't want to face the duplicity of your party, and you are much more comfortable inhabiting a universe of stereotypes. This is because of a lack of intellectual or emotional capacity on your part, or likely some combination of the two. I will leave it to your and your readers to ponder which it is, but I feel for the people who look up to you, and I especially feel for the students who are stuck with your tenure.
Mark:
I was going to keep chasing you as you danced around the point-- but then I looked at your blog. Sentence 2:
We cannot share a country with non-whites if they number more than a very small percentage of our population.
Looks like this is yet another argument on gay rights where simply claiming bigotry and walking away would have saved everyone some time. Fuck off and die, you racist scumbag.
Mr. Giacometti: please consider that name-calling is both juvenile and off-putting. If you think your permutations of Fenrisulven's name are witty, you are mistaken.
It doesn't matter how much high-falutin' verbiage you put out; once I hit the name-calling, I am compelled to distrust everything you say.
Your errors are many.
You continue to use the phrase "your party" in reference to the GOP and Ann, even though Ann has never been a registered Republican and can indeed count on one hand the number times she has voted Republican.
You accused Blackwell of implying that his opponent was gay, when it was in fact the state party organization.
Your later accusations against Blackwell also don't hold any water, at least according to the two articles that were linked here.
Equating Blackwell's statements of fact (regarding Strickland's voting record and convicted staffer) to Roger's "outing" of a Republican senator is, frankly, bizarre.
By any reckoning, you lose. But you can go right on believing that you've won, if that makes you feel any better. It won't change the reality.
Damn! I read way past sentence 2, townleybomb, and it gets much, much worse. Well, if I'm going to be called the result of a birth defect, I'm very happy it's Mark who slapped on that label. Edward is right; I really do need to start paying better attention before I waste time engaging in discussion with people.
Hi Joan,
Fair enough on the name-calling, but I suggest you hold all side to the same standard. Fen started by calling me a moonbat and Professor Althouse has offered little more than I am "stupid." But, sure, point taken.
As to your other points, regardless of what Professor Althouse claims is her party affiliation, this particular post and many on this blog are clearly partisan. She routinely criticizes Democrats and rarely criticizes Republicans. This is a partisan blog, so it fair for me to take the professor to task for her support for her party.
Both Blackwell and the party official have implied that his opponent is gay. Read the intitial article I linked to, as well as several others under Google News. See also the line from the Cincinatti Enquirer, quoted several times by Blue Texan, "Blackwell, in the debate Monday, questioned why Strickland would take a 1998 trip to Italy with the aide." The intent is crystal clear.
I said nothing about Blackwell's other "statements of fact."
My point is very simple. Blackwell and the party official are engaging in a smear campaign which is analagous to the blogger. Given the position of these two Republicans, doesn't this example say more about the Republican party than does the example of the blogger?
At the end of the day, Professor Althouse does nothing with this kind of post except prove her blind allegiance to the Republican party. Even an extra moment of consideration would lead anyone to point out that both sides are guilty of this kind of smear tactic all the time.
Edward, here is your link.
For embedded links, replace the square brackets ([]) below with angle brackets (<>).
[a href="url"]link text[/a]
url is the long text string that begins with http://. It must be enclosed in quotes.
link text will be the text you to be highlighted as clickable to take you to the link.
Does that help?
---
The article does display a lot of sleaze on the part of the Blackwell campain, but I think it is legitimate to hit Strickland on the issue of his non-vote on the anti-abuse act, and his employment of a pervert. The "is he gay or what" innuendo is stupid and frankly, unnecessary as the other two points are truthful and damaging enough. I would like to hear why Strickland kept the staffer on for a whole year after hearing about his conviction, though. All Strickland has said is that Blackwell has "his facts wrong," which is a non-answer if ever I've heard one.
there's a different standard of privacy for public and private figures. Polticians are frequently the target of exactly the type of invasive attention you describe.
There is a different *legal* standard of privacy for public and private figures. There is not a different standard of simple human decency with regard to the privacy of public and private figures.
However, I stop short of having sympathy for public figures who outwardly despise gay people and then privately expect gay people to protect them from scrutiny.
Could you please give an example of Craig "outwardly despising gay people"? I've Googled the man to within an inch of his life and the closest he seems to have come to homophobia is saying that the idea of marriage as heterosexual is supported by both tradition and the Bible -- and he's right on both counts, there.
Are you simply equating "disagrees with you" with "despises you"?
Charles, I've been reading Althouse almost as long as it has been in existence, and I find it ludicrous for you to say this is a partisan blog because there are some posts critizing Democrats. These things tend to be cyclical, and Ann has hammered the Republicans on many, many occasions.
I have read all the articles linked in this thread re the Blackwell/Strickland campain. As I posted above in my reply to Edward, I think some of the issues that Blackwell is bringing up are valid, but I think it's deplorable that he should stoop to insuinating that Strickland is gay.
However, he has said what he's said in public debates, which gives Strickland the opportunity to defend himself, and make Blackwell look like an idiot.
You will most likely accuse me of splitting hairs, but there's a big difference between making an inflammatory statement during a debate when the fur is flying, and purposefully, and most likely fraudulently, accusing a senator of having public, illicit homosexual encounters. The things that Strickland did (the aide's employment, the non-vote, even the trip to Italy) are matters of fact and public record. The accusations against Senator Craig are nameless and as far as I'm concerned, baseless.
It's stupid for Blackwell and/or his campain to insuinate that Strickland is gay. But it's not the same as trying to take down a sitting senator by making up bogus charges against him.
I think it's silly to try to expect commenters to know everything about all political races. Someone upthread said they could maybe name 10 governors, and that's better than where I'm at -- Doyle (WI), Bush (FL), the one in IL whose name I can't pronounce let alone write, Jennifer someone in Michigan. Ahnold (CA). Rendell (PA). Hmmm. Taft in Ohio, but only because of all the scandal there. Is it sad that I don't know the Governor where there are Idiots Out Walking Around -- or in Minnesota?
To expect someone to know what's going on in a race several states away is ridiculous.
Having said that, Blackwell's behavior seems outrageous. Doesn't change the stupidity of the blogger.
Edward,
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Blackwell was totally off-base and out of line in criticizing Strickland's non-support of the anti-pedophilia statement. What's that got to do with your claim that he's being homophobic? Surely *you* don't equate homosexuality and pedophilia?
So far as I can tell from the links you've posted, the only open allegation of homosexuality came from someone who got sacked. A Republican party official also asked "where was Frances?" (Strickland's wife) in regards to Strickland's vacationing in Italy, sans wife, with the aforementioned pedophile. That could be taken as a hint that Strickland was gay, but on the other hand it is well within the bounds of what Democrats consider acceptable questioning when the parties involved are switched.
test link not useful content
thanks Joan
Shanna said
"We should take every potential policy and look at it scientifically, is it something that can be done and what are the potential outcomes."
As a scientist, I can appreciate your ideas. But realistically speaking? forget it. Imagine taxing risky "social" behavior the way we tax smoking. We can't even begin to talk about it
You accused Blackwell of implying that his opponent was gay, when it was in fact the state party organization.
Joan, this is incorrect. The Enquirer article clearl states Blackwell did so directly, by innuendo.
Blackwell, in the debate Monday, questioned why Strickland would take a 1998 trip to Italy with the aide.
Both Ann and Fenris have called me a "liar" for supposedly misreprenting this.
Will they apologize? Doubt it.
Can't we agree that Ann's initial post was nothing but a bunch of foolishness, especially in light of just this latest example of out-in-the-open GOP bigotry?
I'm amused that liberals are satisfied to apply the label "racist" and then sit back as though that refutes any arguments at all. What does the fact that I am a racist (and yes, it is a fact) have to do with the validity of the arguments I made regarding the topic of this post? Again, you have difficulty separating the person from the argument.
Blackwell's insertion of pedophilia into this campaign is relatively new, even though the exact charges that he's making against Strickland in terms of pedophilia are not new and have been dealt with before
New or old, my point is simply that they're irrelevant to the point being discussed -- they're negative campaigning, not gay-baiting.
The rumor campaign about Strickland's imagined homosexuality has, for the most part, taken place out of the spotlight. That doesn't mean it hasn't taken place.
Well I didn't say it hadn't taken place, just that your links didn't demonstrate that it had. Whether he's been deliberately stirring up homophobia or not, I have no idea. But your repeated statements that Blackwell's homophobia cannot be understood without special and extensive knowledge of his past history makes me highly suspicious -- I could prove Pat Robertson's a homophobe in about three seconds even if the listener had never even heard of the man before. When it takes special analysis to discover bias I start seriously doubting its existance.
It's just been a classic Republican dirty tricks campaign tactic
It is a classic dirty tricks campaign tactic of no particular partisan affiliation -- American politicians and their supporters have been implying sexual misdeeds and/or deviancy on the part of the opposition since the Jefferson-Adams race.
Revenant, fair enough. I've let myself get off the topic of the blogger "outing" Craig, and onto outing in general. I don't know anything at all about Craig, and I've said outing strikes me as a useless strategy. Fen asked if I'd accept a violation of my privacy and my answer is yes, if I were a public figure, or holding office. That's to be taken for granted.
Mark, the arguments you've made so far rest on the same brilliant reasoning as your racism. Gays are birth defects, non-whites are inferior. That's the sum of your credibility. I realize it all makes perfect sense to you.
Joan, this is incorrect. The Enquirer article clearl states Blackwell did so directly, by innuendo.
Innuendo: an indirect intimation about a person or thing.
"Directly, by innuendo", eh? When he was done, did he get straight to the point in a roundabout way? Or did he literally beat around the bush, figuratively speaking?
Blackwell, in the debate Monday, questioned why Strickland would take a 1998 trip to Italy with the aide.
I don't see why asking somebody why they vacationed with a convicted child molester is so obviously an attempt to paint the object of your question as a homosexual. The more reasonable interpretation is that it was an attempt to paint him as someone who didn't mind child molesters -- especially since that's the very thing that Blackwell "directly, NOT by innuendo" accused his opponent immediately following the above statement.
Can't we agree that Ann's initial post was nothing but a bunch of foolishness, especially in light of just this latest example of out-in-the-open GOP bigotry?
Whether or not the GOP is bigoted is completely irrelevant to anything Ann said in her post, so that's a "no". She said that the outing of Craig was reprehensible, which it was, and probably helpful to social conservatives, which it probably is. Maybe Blackwell's being reprehensible and helpful to social conservatives too, but so what?
And in any case, the fact that none of you have been able to come up with any evidence of Blackwell's gay-baiting beyond "trust us, it's happening, and if you knew a lot about Blackwell you'd see it too" and "if you squint your eyes and stare really hard, you can *almost* make out the homophobia in this discussion of pedophilia" demonstrates that Ann's failure to condemn the alleged gay-baiting is entirely reasonable -- she's not familiar with Ohio politics and none of the people who are have stepped up to offer supporting evidence for the allegations.
elizabeth:
What's wrong with gayness being a birth defect? There's nothing "wrong" with people who have cleft palates or other birth defects. I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that there is a genetic basis to homosexuality, and that homosexuality is abnormal. Don't get so defensive - there are lots of kinds of birth defects and none of them should carry a moral stigma.
This isn't the place for a discussion of race issues. But still you are ignoring the argument I made, and in a fit of righteous indignation, waving away all of my points on the basis of my racism. That may pass for an argument in the circles you move in, but you ought to practice actually refuting my points. They might come up some time when you can't dismiss them simply by calling someone a name.
Mark--
You deserve all of the sympathy and consideration of a child molester. Go back to the filthy hole you crawled out of and choke on this in hell.
Everyone here is missing the point. Your sexuality is private until you get other people involved.
As soon as you decide to have sex with somebody else - tough luck - those details of your sex life are no longer private, because somebody else knows about them.
I thought this would have been obvious to everyone in high school, after they heard guys talking about their various conquests in the locker room.
People don't hide the fact that people are straight, so why should we hide the fact that people are gay? It's perfectly acceptable to speculate on someone's sexuality. Many people were speculating on my sexuality years before I came out of the closet. That is all that is going on here.
If Larry Craig doesn't want people saying he's gay - then it's his fault - because he shouldn't have been having gay sex. And if he did - he should have been having it with someone he could trust. I'd say it's pretty bad judgment for having sex with random people in public rest rooms - because you don't know whether you can trust those people to keep that private.
Heck - the same internet bloggers whore just SHOCKED! SHOCKED! by this state of affairs, are the same ones who talk openly about Bill Clinton's penis, who say that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, that spread whisper campaigns that Ann Richards was a lesbian (that was Karl Rove actually), that attack Andrew Sullivan for having an internet dating ad that mentioned his sexual preferences.
When the anti-gay bigots say they are out to protect gay people - I have one piece of advice for gays. Ignore them - because the bigots hate you.
And outing has NOTHING to do with supressing the conservative vote. It has everything to do with revenge. And it's free speech, so tough luck.
I'm glad Larry Craig was outed. He's a self-loathing gay man who has spent his life harming openly gay people. Time to expose his life for the fraud that it is. Now won't it be amusing to find out that his wife has HIV, because I'm sure Larry Craig wasn't using birth control (wouldn't be prudent).
And let's not forget that the Federal Government has an active policy to investigate the private lives of soldiers and if they find out they are gay, they put this in their permenant military record, and proceed to fire them from their jobs.
Larry Craig supports this policy. Now that we know that he is gay, it would be very interesting to ask him why he thinks he would be unfit to serve in the military? He's entitled to hold that opinion of course, but I've never met a gay person who backed that policy. So perhaps Larry Craig can add an interesting perspective on that front.
It has everything to do with revenge.
Now won't it be amusing to find out that his wife has HIV...
That would be real amusing, huh?
I sure hope you aren't representative of homosexuals in general. You don't seem like a very nice person.
I don't favor outing. But I do favor revenge.
So if you are out on a mission to make my life miserable, as Larry Craig has done, then I favor anything that will destroy you.
If it's publicizing the fact that you have sex in a public bathroom - fine. If it's publishing a homemade porno of your wife having sex - fine. If it's exposing the fact that you are a drug addict - fine. If it's exposing the fact that you had an illicit affair - fine. If it's exposing the fact that you've engaged in extortion - fine. In other words - I say hire a private detective and dig up any piece of dirt you can find on this person and simply destroy his life.
He's destroying my life. So I'm glad to see his life destroyed. I hope Larry Craig commits suicide because of this incident. I have zero sympathy for him, because he's an self-loathing scum.
You don't seem like a very nice person.
I'm very nice. But if people choose to mess with me - they better watch out. Because I'm happy to give them a taste of their own medicine.
I don't buy any of this Jesus crap about turning the other cheek. It's also why I favor the death penalty. Not to lower crime. But to kill the mother fuckers.
Everyone here is missing the point. Your sexuality is private until you get other people involved. As soon as you decide to have sex with somebody else - tough luck - those details of your sex life are no longer private, because somebody else knows about them.
Whew! That certainly clears up a lot of questions. There'd been all that debate about whether Bush's wiretaps violated people's privacy. But it turns out that so long as the person being wiretapped is talking to another person, there IS no privacy -- because the other person knows what he's saying.
Thanks for clearing that up, DTL. Heaven only knows how many man-hours of wasted court time you've saved us with this revelation.
downtownlad said:
"He's destroying my life. So I'm glad to see his life destroyed. I hope Larry Craig commits suicide because of this incident. I have zero sympathy for him, because he's an self-loathing scum."
Thanks for the personal insight into what really motivates you DTL. I think we'll all just file that one away for later.
Brent: I hate people who misuse the word hate!
I have had many, many gay friends over the years. I have known several of them before and after they were out of the closet. At times, within our close-knit group of friends, some of the gays were in, some were out.
It kills me how people are jumping on this thread talking shit about every gay who's in the closet. For christ's sake, gays should be the ones who understand better than anyone else what a complex and difficult decision it is. Blithely being like, "It's all about self-loathing" is simply wrong and it's condescendiing.
Basically what it comes across as is: Once I'm out of the closet, then EVERYONE should be, and shame on those who aren't. They deserve to be outed/humilitated/scorned/pitied etc. Forget the fact that every gay has had to think carefully and deliberately about coming out and summon a good amount of courage to do so.
Gays get enough of a hard time from homophobes, etc. Shame on other gays who pile on.
It kills me how people are jumping on this thread talking shit about every gay who's in the closet. For christ's sake, gays should be the ones who understand better than anyone else what a complex and difficult decision it is. Blithely being like, "It's all about self-loathing" is simply wrong and it's condescendiing.
Who's saying that "every" gay person should be outed? There's a big difference between outing a gay person who has not done anything and outing a gay politician who actively campaigns to have gays imprisoned and fired from their jobs, as Larry Craig has consistently done over the years.
And ever gay guy in the closet IS self-loathing. I've been in the closet and I know what I'm talking about.
The right-wingers LIE when they say that they have no problem with gay people. Look at the reaction on the left, when Democratic politicans are outed. Barbara Mikulski was outed and nobody blinked. Because her supporters couldn't care less.
But when a right-wing politician is outed, suddently they are horrified. Why? If it is really no big deal to be outed, what's the big deal? I mean - it's not like they are going to care - right?
Wrong. Of course they care. And that is exactly why it is so hard for gay people to come out. Because they KNOW that 70% of the population are raving anti-gay bigots who think gays are second-class citizens. And gay people know that they are going to lose some friends and family members when they come out.
Of course as society becomes more and more tolerant, people will have no issues coming out, and the fear of outing, and the consequences thereof will be zero. Saying that "Joe is gay" will be no more "slimy" or "shameful" than saying "Joe has a crush on Mary."
By the way - why are we only supposed to be horrified when an closeted Republican who touts anti-gay legislation is outed.
I have seen Tom Cruise referred to as gay on South Park. Not a peep from the right-wing blogosphere.
An actor from Grey's anatomy was outed the other day.
http://www.towleroad.com/2006/10/tab_isaiah_wash.html
T.R. Knight, not making a big deal out of it, admitted he was gay today.
Where's the outrage? Or is it only when Republicans are outed that outrage is allowed?
Spare me the crocodile tears.
Here's E! trying to out Matthew McConaughey and Lance Armstrong.
http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=6e0a097d-9b6e-4aa8-8e04-13e4d7a321d4
The horror! The horror!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा