Say Anything Blog

Come now, Rob.  Let’s not pretend the GOP has a deep reverence and respect for people’s sexual privacy.  Or have you forgotten Kenny Starr?  And not a day passes on most rightwing blogs where Senator Clinton is referred to a lesbian who had her lover, Vince Foster, murdered.

For pity’s sake--the leaders of the GOP are deeply concerned about the sexual preferences of cartoon characters.

As for “outting campaigns,” I have mixed feelings.  On one hand, if you’re the head of an organization that is very anti-gay like the GOP--I see no reason why a Ken Mehlman should have his homosexuality kept quiet.  Same goes for a number of GOP Senators and Congressmen.

OTOH, let’s say you’re a accountant for the RNC who happens to be gay.  Your sexual privacy should probably be protected.

JadeGold says:

Or have you forgotten Kenny Starr?

There is a big difference between Clinton’s sexual history and those of public figures in general:  Clinton’s sexual history became public business after he perjured himself in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him by Paula Jones.  The issue here is whether anyone, including a standing president, should be above the law.

Personally, since it was a civil case, I really wish it would have been postponed until Clinton left office.  I think it did more harm than good to the public interest to allow it to proceed.  I know that JG is probably going to say that Paula Jones pushed this case as far as she did for political reasons. [*] I guess my only response to this would be “duh”.  Judge her for her actions.  I never supported them, but Clinton should never have lied under oath.  Of course, had he perjured himself after leaving office, he probably would have ended up in prison…

The point where private behavior is of public interest is when it affects the public good.  Acts of sexual violence, intimidation etc. are in a very different category than a closet gay or lesbian.

If public figures want to keep their private lives private, we should generally respect that, as long as they abide within the law to do so.  The problem is that some liberals have gone to extremes in their personal attacks on their political enemies, where they will try to destroy them anyway they can.  Comparisons between them and Joe McCarthy are pretty apropos in my mind.

Jadegold says:

Senator Clinton is referred to [as] a lesbian who had her lover, Vince Foster, murdered.

Hm… a murderous lesbian with a straight lover.  Now that’s a twist.  Link please?

[*] I should point out that, at the time, NOW supported her lawsuit.  Also dropping support had less to do with issues over merits of the case, but rather the politicization that was occuring at the time.

You seem to be making the argument that Republicans should out their own.  Okay… so let them.  Idiots like Alan Keyes do a lot of harm.  When leftists try to out gay Republicans, the irony of people who claim to be tolerant making a big deal about sexuality tends to overshadow the irony of a Republican who happens to be gay.  Why shouldn’t homosexuals be Republican?  Republicans tend to be for lower taxes, and homosexuals make more money than heterosexuals (on the average).  Many people assume that the homosexual agenda should be the most important thing to homosexuals when they choose political sides, and that is not always the case.

Jade: “Or have you forgotten Kenny Starr? And not a day passes on most rightwing blogs where Senator Clinton is referred to a lesbian who had her lover, Vince Foster, murdered.”

OK.  Let’s talk about Ken Starr.  He’s already been covered well by Carrick, but here is a fact you do NOT seem to be aware of.  At the time Bill Clinton was under investigation for PERJURY, there were five people in PRISON for lying in court under PRECISELY the same conditions Clinton did. 

Remember when Geraldo Rivera issued a challenge for ANYONE to find an instance of someone convicted of perjury while lying in a civil sexual harassment case?  Within 24 hours, a law student had FIVE cases, and Geraldo had to be forced to pay up .

In other words, Clinton did NOT go to prison for something other people DID go to prison for.  And he WAS CONVICTED of perjury… he lost his law license in Arkansas because of it. 

So it isn’t as if Clinton was actually innocent of this felony.  This wasn’t persecution of an innocent man… he was guilty of perjury.

Once again, Kenny Starr never accused President Clinton of perjury.  The reason he didn’t was that he had no grounds to do so.

But, Kenny Starr, hoping to get back on track for a Supreme Court opening did what sleazy lawyers everywhere do when the law isn’t on his side--he smeared the President’s private life.

The beauty of the Paula Jones case is that it was thrown out with the judge explaining that even *if* all of Jones’ claims were 100% true and accurate--they did not constitute sexual harrassment.

The beauty of the Paula Jones case is that it was thrown out with the judge explaining that even *if* all of Jones’ claims were 100% true and accurate–they did not constitute sexual harrassment.

Which is why Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to drop the case. Right?

I really don’t see where all this discussion of Bill Clinton has to do with the homosexual witch hunts being conducted by the left.  Clinton got in trouble for lying under oath and banging interns in the White House.  That is very much of public interest.

But if Mr. Mehlman is gay (and really I have no feeling one way or the other)...what does it matter?  Is he having sex in his office?  Is he using his political influence to benefit his lovers?  If those things were true I’d be very much in support of an investigation.

But trying to “out” people like Mehlman for the purient interest of their political enemies is wrong and the people doing it should be ashamed of themselves.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

TGF: “As a gay man myself, I have the right to out anyone in a party that allows homophobic haters like like James Dobson, Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell to speak for them.”

No you don’t.  You have NO right to invade the privacy of a law-abiding person.  Isn’t that what the gay activists are all about?  Or are YOU just a bunch of hypocrites?

As a gay man myself, I have the right to out anyone in a party that allows homophobic haters like like James Dobson, Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell to speak for them.

If the Bush administration has such respect for gay people, why would they dismiss Arab linguists from the military?

Keep pushing this line of BULLSHIT Rob, it only makes you look more like a hypocrite!

Hi Rob,

re: “I really don’t see where all this discussion of Bill Clinton has to do with the homosexual witch hunts being conducted by the left. Clinton got in trouble for lying under oath and banging interns in the White House. That is very much of public interest.”

This is connected because the left, as usual, are pretending that sexual antics of ANY description are equal to the Clinton escapade, and they’re trying to show what a bunch of hypocrites we are.  Of course, that isn’t true since the charge against Clinton was always perjury.  But they’re trying to pretend that he wasn’t found guilty of that charge, and that it had nothing to do with the impeachment. 

I suppose the stock response to liberals about Mr. Mehlman would be, “OK… so when did he lie under oath about it?”

That would be the only problem I could see with Mr. Mehlman (aside from antics taking place inside his office, and the left would have to PROVE that to me).

Jade: “Once again, Kenny Starr never accused President Clinton of perjury. The reason he didn’t was that he had no grounds to do so.”

Perjury is EXACTLY what Starr accused Clinton of, and he had plenty of evidence of it.  And it is exactly what Clinton was found guilty of by the judge on the case. 

Carrick is right, you know .

thatcoloredfella: “As a gay man myself, I have the right to out anyone in a party that allows homophobic haters like like James Dobson, Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell to speak for them.”

I’m a Republican, and I have no idea who James Dobson is. Fred Phelps is ignored, and Jerry Falwell is treated like a crazy uncle that you somewhat tolerate, but avoid if possible. And whether you’re gay or not has no bearing on whether or not you have the right to “out” people. I have the right to “out” people too and I’m straight. I just don’t do it.

Also, what’s the point of this? Maybe he’s gay, maybe not, but what good does it do you to point out the hypocrisy of others by becoming one yourself? By “outing” him, aren’t you just pertetuating the idea that there’s something abnormal about being gay? How does that help your cause?

In the end, “outing” him might backfire (providing he actually is gay), and show that gay people aren’t unwelcome in the Republican party, which may lead to more gay people voting Republican.

On second thought, keep doing what you’re doing.

This guy Mike Rogers is tight with John Avarosis, the twerp from Amerikablog (re: the outing of Gannon), who were responsible for outing many lesser gay republicans before the election

I think its funny how the left hide behind people like Avarosis (just as TCF is hiding behind his own sexuality) when they’re engaging in some right-wing gay persecution.  Its as though the fact that its a gay person doing persecuting makes it A-OK.

If a minority employer were to refuse to hire other minority employees would he or she be any less of a racist than a white employer engaging in the same practices?

If a Republican were to target gays on the left for “outing” and ridicule based on their sexuality would the left accept that as legitimate political activity?

I don’t think so.  I think they’d screech to the high heavens.  But when its the other side being targeted they’re just fine with it.

I find that despicable.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I do believe Bill Clinton had something to do with the current mil policy regarding gays. 7 of these guys “told” their superiors? 2 happened to get caught in the rack? Together? Ther’s more here then is being told, or is there? I think the policy is stupid but it is the policy.
Outing someone is wrong! It’s plain damned rude! You are messing with their private lives. When they want people to know they’ll come out on their own. On the job, they should be judged by the quality of the work they do, not by who they sleep with.

This is no different than when Jesse Jackson or Kwesi Mfume calls some free thinking brother “uncle tom” or “white boy”.  The implication is that to be Black one must be in lockstep with “the african-american agenda”, or to be homosexual one must be “gay first, and american second”. 

Incidentally, This guy Mike Rogers is tight with John Avarosis, the twerp from Amerikablog (re: the outing of Gannon), who were responsible for outing many lesser gay republicans before the election, and the driving force behind an attempt to humiliate Mary Cheney into dishonoring her father during the middle of the most important campagn of his lifetime.  It is to her credit that she completely ignored them.

Despicable does not begin to describe the levels of depravity of which these two sodomites are capable.

Jason: I’m a Republican, and I have no idea who James Dobson is. Fred Phelps is ignored, and Jerry Falwell is treated like a crazy uncle that you somewhat tolerate, but avoid if possible.

I’m a republican, and i know and love Dr. James Dobson.  Besides opposing same-sex marriage on principled grounds, he has done nothing to deserve to be lumped into the same sentance with Phelps and Falwell, both of whom have earned their reputations, and of which i agree 100% with what Jason said.  Phelps is our NAMBLA, and Falwell is our Shaprton.  Neither speak for anyone but themself.

Dobson, on the other hand, is still respected, and respectable, but is suddenly—and this is probably why you just heard of him—being demonized like the others, simply for speaking out against same-sex marriage on Christian principles, and (gasp) actually having people listen to him!

Rob says:

I find that despicable.

Well said, Rob!  I think most reasonable people find these sorts of tactics despicable, regardless of which wing they belong to.  This is part of the reason for the uber-left’s steadily-diminishing circle of friends.

The Democratic party only likes gays who agree with them.  The Republicans are not “authentically gay”, and something wrong with them.  Democrats say those things as if they are ordained.
Example:
“if you’re the head of an organization that is very anti-gay like the GOP–I see no reason why a Ken Mehlman should have his homosexuality kept quiet.”

It is nice to see, that to some Americans, our fellow countrymen are not equal based on political affiliation.  If I agree with Jade, I am safe from punishment and ridicule.  I disagree, then I get whatever ridicule and intimidation I deserve, as ordaned by Jade and co.  Brute force is used to silence individual dissent. 

Does that sound fascist to you?  It does to me.

But if Mr. Mehlman is gay (and really I have no feeling one way or the other)…what does it matter?

Of course, it matters.  Mehlman is a gay man at the helm of a party which would deny gays basic civil rights.

Let’s face the fact that your side is once again acting hypoocritically to protect one of your own.  And,here’s the important takeaway, you’re protecting Mehlman from your own partisans who wouldn’t like the idea of a very gay man heading the RNC.

Because the vast majority of Republicans I know

You must not know many GOPers.  Look, we can always provide an anecdote to support what we say.

But why don’t we look at what the party says.  Here’s an excerpt from the TX GOP platform (one, I might add was championed by AWOL George):

Homosexuality—The Party believes that the practice of sodomy, which is illegal in Texas, tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Accordingly, homosexuality should not be presented as an acceptable “alternative� lifestyle in our public education and policy. We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody or adoption of children, spousal (partner) insurance or retirement benefits.

Frankly, your “states rights” argument is a cop-out--would you support allowing states to determine if segregation is acceptable?

The Democratic party only likes gays who agree with them. The Republicans are not “authentically gay�, and something wrong with them.

They extend the same kind of thinking to other demographics as well.  Black Republicans are not “authentically black” either.  The Colin Powell’s of the world are “Uncle Toms.” The Rice’s are “Aunt Jemima’s.” It doesn’t matter if you’re insulting or even down-right racist to these people, because they’re on the other side and below respect.

Again, despicable.

Of course, it matters. Mehlman is a gay man at the helm of a party which would deny gays basic civil rights.

Really?  Because the vast majority of Republicans I know just don’t want the gay marriage issued decided in the courts or on the federal level.  They want the right to determine that issue left up to the people of each individual state.

The truth of the matter is that while some Republicans may be pre-occupied with who people have sex with us, most of us simply don’t care.  I think that is evident by the enormous non-reaction to Kerry’s desperate attempt to use Mary Cheney against her father.  It blew up in his face.  Why?  Because the only people who seem to care about a politician’s political orientation are, for the most part, Democrats.

Just as they’re the only party who seems to care about the race of politicians as well.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Feh, I care little for the GOP platform in Texas.  Lets look at action.  Which side is currently engaged in an “outing” campaign?  Which side is using sexuality as a weapon?

I’ll admit that some in the GOP still cling to a rather archaic view of homosexuality, but that sort of thinking is slowly dying out in the party.  I again point to my Mary Cheney example.  The left is trying to use homosexuality as a weapon, but these attacks are routinely met with a big, collective yawn from the right.

Frankly, your “states rights� argument is a cop-out–would you support allowing states to determine if segregation is acceptable?

Yes, I would.  Because that’s how our country was set up to run.  We can’t ignore the constitution simply because we think a situation is too important for it to be applied to.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Feh, I care little for the GOP platform in Texas.

Wait a minute.  AWOL George was the head of the TX GOP at the time this was written.  At some point, Rob, you’re going to have to take responsibility for the party you champion.

I’ll admit that some in the GOP still cling to a rather archaic view of homosexuality, but that sort of thinking is slowly dying out in the party.

Not really; I’d say the opposite--the religious fundamentalists are now a major player in the GOP.  It used to be they were the crazy aunt in the attic.  Now, they’re being appointed to cabinet posts and Govt. positions.

Yes, I would. Because that’s how our country was set up to run.

So, was Brown v. Topeka Bd of Education was wrong?

Yes, JG, the Supreme Court OFTEN oversteps it’s bounds and forces it’s own morality onto the American public.  In principle, I agree with the decision but the Supreme Court had no right, under the guise of the Constitution, to make that decision for the country… that’s why we have legislatures…

the ridiculousness of the Supreme Court citing foreign treaties and the like recently… they’re not Mount Olypus, they’re just 9 people in black robes

I’m not surprised that everyone of my detractors here have been quite mum on the link that I provided!

Why is the Pentagon desperately looking for Arab linguists right now? Because, they dishonorably discharged nearly a hundred for being gay.

This is what gives us the right to out Ken Mehlman and Gannon, or anyone else who will be party to such intolerance and hatred.

And, this charge of the Left demanding that Blacks and Gays be in lockstep, will always be your sole argument on this point, because you’ve got nothing else.

Finally, every time Rob uses the words, of say, a blogger like John Byrne at Raw Story who exposed Gannongate, as representing ‘The Left’, I will respond with Phelps, Dobson and Falwell as representing ‘The Right’, because they appear regularly on Fox News, the Michael Savage radio show and Scarborough Country.

Sound fair to me.

7 according the story

My mistake, 9

TCF-
The reason that they are in such need of Arab linguists is that there is a shortage of people in America that can do that translation and the very few who can are getting paid much more money in the private sector.  Suppy and Demand, my friend…

And why exactly is it a problem that the army discharged a few (7 according the story, where’d you get “hundreds”???) army personel for disobeying their charter?

My error. Not close to a hundred, but more than 9!

Number Of Gay Linguists Discharged Higher Than Thought

And, what is this ‘disobeying their charter’ crap Aaron? Read the articles!

We shouldn’t be having this conversation! The rule is hurting the mission of the military. Let your congresspeople know, get the rule changed. As I’ve said, I believe people should be judged by the job performance, not sexual orientation, or political leanings for that matter!
The mil can dictate actions on base but the privacy of one’s own home offbase should be sacrosant!
Does it matter who a person sleeps with? Consenting adults and all.
This kind of ignorrance kept the best fighter squadron in WW2 from seeing action for awhile!
I will ask the following, though
What is the incentive for these gay mil members to be outing themselves?

Not really; I’d say the opposite–the religious fundamentalists are now a major player in the GOP. It used to be they were the crazy aunt in the attic. Now, they’re being appointed to cabinet posts and Govt. positions.

And yet, which side is it again that is targeting homosexuals in “outing” campaigns?

I’m not surprised that everyone of my detractors here have been quite mum on the link that I provided!

Its because your point isn’t really relative.  The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy was signed into law by former President Clinton.  You also seem to be implying that its a policy I agree with, which also isn’t true.

The actions here speak louder than words.  The left is engaging in outing campaigns targeting homosexuals.  Do you see anyone on the right engaging in that sort of behavior?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

That’s fine and all, Maxxdog. I am not at all opposed to that change.

But the rules in the military as it stands now is Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, remember?  One of Clinton’s materpiece ideas....

If you proclaim to be gay, or especially if you are caught in a gay act, then you are breaking the rules and are therefore deserving of being discharged.  Military personel are made fully aware of this going in, it’s not like it’s a surprise…

tcf; Maybe Gannon sucks as a reporter.
Maybe that’s why Fox hasn’t hired him.
Get your congress people to introduce legislation to change this policy! That’s the way the system works. Then the Pres can sign the bill.
Until that happens, when gay mil members OUT THEMSELVES or otherwise break that rule they will be discharged.

Its because your point isn’t really relative. The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy was signed into law by former President Clinton. You also seem to be implying that its a policy I agree with, which also isn’t true.

It damn well is relative, Rob! The Bush administration can ask Americans to sacrifice certain civil liberties (Patriot Act) to combat terrorism, but will not prevent 20 badly needed Arab translators from being discharged because they are gay?

Outing Ken Mehlman did not stop him from getting the RNC job, and Rep. David Drier did not resign. If Armstrong Williams wanted to retain the privacy of his homosexuality, he should not have sexually harassed and attacked other men - repeatedly. If Jeff Gannon wanted to maintain his privacy, he could’ve done a better job of hiding the fact he was a hooker!

If the Right believes there’s nothing wrong with Gannon being gay, why hasn’t he been hired at Fox News or the Moonie Times?

Let’s compare now Rob. 3 of 4 outed Gay Republicans still have their jobs, while the administration has seriously crippled our War on Terror by dismissing 20 Gay Arab linguists.

Hypocrite.

Heck, we don’t even make a big deal out of Lindsey Graham (R-SC) or Mark Foley (R-FL).

We could have made a much larger deal out of Bill Paxson (R-NY) and Susan Molinari (R-NY) and that whole unpleasant affair with Britt Hume’s son.

But we didn’t.

Get your congress people to introduce legislation to change this policy! That’s the way the system works. Then the Pres can sign the bill.
Until that happens, when gay mil members OUT THEMSELVES or otherwise break that rule they will be discharged.

So what you’re saying maxxdog, is that your ‘compassionate’ party is not concerned with the devastating effect this is having on the War On Terror, that it’s up to the Dems to introduce such legislation? Even if you think Bush will sign it?

Cut the crap! You know Bush could end this practice if he wanted to! And again, read the linked articles. Most of these soldiers were targeted. But, regardless of their behavior, there is no excuse for this.

thatcoloredfella spits out, “ Let’s compare now Rob. 3 of 4 outed Gay Republicans still have their jobs, while the administration has seriously crippled our War on Terror by dismissing 20 Gay Arab linguists.

Hypocrite.”

Rob was talking about the disgusting way that the Democrats are outing people, and you insist on talking about this so you can call Rob a “hypocrite” on something he doesn’t agree with in the first place?!  Really?  Weird argument technique there…

Real simple just for you thatcoloredfella: Rob said he doesn’t agree with the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Now continue your browbeating of everybody who’s gay and Republican.  Lock step!

thatcoloredfella said, As a gay man myself, I have the right to out anyone in a party that allows homophobic haters like like James Dobson, Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell to speak for them.

Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps is a Democrat. He’s one of your own.  The other two you mentioned aren’t “homophobic haters”.

[...] An angry Democrat just climaxed his call-in rant by repeating one of the more popular rumors on Sean Hannity’s radio show. [...]

[...] SayAnythingBlog has the details on the latest target. [...]