Foleygate continues to snowball, picking up more and more victims along the way as it speeds further down the gutter than you ever wanted to go, careening through the sewers, and ending who-knows-where.
To my mind, there are really three scandals rolled into one here:
(1) Foley’s manipulation of power to prey on innocense (ed. Not “innocents” since it does not seem his conquests were that at all.)
(2) Absentee leadership at all levels by both parties to prevent this sort of behavior from happening in the first place.
(3) The second betrayal of the pages used by Foley, this time by those who withheld pertinent information for political purposes, and those who now are using the plight of those pages to bash the entire Republican Party.
Regarding the third scandal, there is now a list of closeted gay congressional aides circulating Capitol Hill, which is intended to intimidate and harrass Republicans even further. Writes David Corn:
There’s a list going around. Those disseminating it call it “The List.” It’s a roster of top-level Republican congressional aides who are gay.
On CBS News on Tuesday, correspondent Gloria Borger reported that there’s anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called a “network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice.” The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List–drawn up by gay politicos–is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network.
Yeah right, David. The List was drawn up by Republicans. That makes sense. I guess they figured they needed a bigger challenge with the upcoming elections and all? It’s just been too easy for them so far. Puh. Leeze.
Gay Patriot informs us that, in fact, “that List was begun by Gay Leftists years ago.” He also remarks (emphasis mine):
I am not surprised that this is where we are headed. But my question is…. why have our national gay organizations (HRC, Log Cabin, NGLTF) not stepped in to stop this witchhunt which originated on the Gay Left in the first place? I think we know the answer. Tolerance and diversity of opinion is a one-way street for the Gay Liberals and their masters in the Democrat Party.
Staying with that theme for a moment, next we have Gerard Van der Leun commenting on the same David Corn piece regarding the List (again, emphasis mine):
At the same time, the rich and full aroma of deep irony revolves around what can only be seen as a Democratic initiated and driven effort to purge Congress at all levels of homosexuals because they are, well, Republicans or work for same. Coming from a party that is first and foremost about advancing gay and lesbian rights on all fronts, it seems especially shameful that — to settle all their old scores and gripes and grievances — they are going willing to sacrifice the lives, careers and reputations of their fellow Americans on the altar of their derangement.
And there we have what Gay Patriot hinted at. The “BIG LIE”. It’s so ensconced in our brains that we don’t even notice it anymore. Here’s the truth:
The Democratic Party is no more the in favor of advancing gay and lesbian rights than the Republican Party is in favor of advancing small government initiatives. With respect to the Democrats, the only gays and lesbians who should have any special rights are those who conform to the party ranks. If you don’t support the Party agenda, you get no rights, privileges, respect or admiration. You are, instead, ungrateful scum.
This is likely not news to you. We’ve all seen the way that liberals treat blacks who wander off the reservation. And yet, the BIG LIE gets repeated in such an off-hand way, even by those who don’t believe in the substance of it (or, in the very least, know enough not to). Much like the way that Republicans take small-government types for granted, gays and lesbians get that treatment from Democrats.
But there is a viciousness present in Democrats’ treatment of conservative/Republican gays and lesbians (particularly gays) that isn’t really mirrored by Republicans toward apostates. There’s a special nastiness in the way liberals sneer at them. That nastiness belies the true nature of the Democrat support for gays and lesbians (and all such special interest groups for that matter): to them it’s a quid pro quo game — “I support your interests and you vote for my candidates, every time , no excuses.”
Well it appears that the mask has come off now, and that the Democrats have created a bit of a time-bomb situation for themselves. The Republicans look bad now, but what’s going to happen when it’s revealed that Democrats knew just as much as anyone else about Foley’s escapades (and possibly more), and yet, did nothing about it except attack homosexuals after the scandal had broken? It will not be good for them.
Most importantly, it should be clear by now that one’s sexuality is only of interest to Democrats if it provides them votes. If you are going to work against them, then you are expendable. They won’t just throw you under the bus, they will tie you up, hold you down and laugh maniacly at you as you are crushed under their wheels.
Politicians don’t care about your problems. They only care about how much power they can buy from you with promises.
[tags] Foley, Foleygate, Masturgate, Congressional Pages, Hastert, scandal, Democrats, homosexuality, gay and lesbian, identity politics [/tags]
Mike, this is a terrible, desperate, genuinely bizzare post. It seems like it was written by someone else, frankly. What happened here?
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I followed your link to the political pit bull, and I followed six of his links. They were, frankly shamefully heavy on allegation and void of content.
Let’s take this step by step.
this time by those who withheld pertinent information for political purposes,
#1:
Even if it wasn’t an absurd idea, it would be a lame moral lapse to consider even the alledged witholding of information about a Republican sex scandal by the Democratic Party to be on a par with the witholding of said information by the Republican Party. No one in their right minds could imagine the Democrats having any intention of permanently suppressing this scandal, merely (and this is the allegations, not the reality) the manipulation of its timing for political gain.
So we have the Republicans clearly having known about it for a *decade*, and prepared to bury it *indefinitely* for *their* political gain – with the consequences of the ****behavior never being stopped and punished**** vs. the Democrats, *alledgedly* witholding the information for *weeks or months* to benefit more greatly from the *inevitable and appropriate* outing, halting, and punishment* of that behavior.
In no way are these things even close to equal. One embraces the permanent perpeutation of these abuses of power and the permanent denial of justice. The other tactically finegales with the tactical specifics of generally appropriate justice for personal gain. The second generally if imperectly serves justice. The first betrays it.
And that’s only the bankruptcy of your equation, in the hypothetical scenario that your allegations had any merit.
#2. The allegations are bogus. “Democratic Congressional Leaders Knew”? Because one gay fringe group is blogposting about their own blog posts on the DCC website **two days** before the story broke by ABC? Are you kidding??? This is the Democratic conspiracy? Mike, this is beneath you.
Or what? The political pit bull link goes on to discredit *himself* the idea that “Democrats” knew about this.His one maybe-kinda-factoid to the possibly-contrary is something **Dick Morris** says some unspecified reporter told him once??
Michael, Senior Republican staffers are coming forth left and right admitting to the media that they told Dennis Hastert himself about the problem on multiple occasions over a period of years!! You think these people were telling this to Nancy Pelosi?? Your attempt to spin this on “both parties” is a joke, Michael. It’s a joke. There’s not one, lousy shred of evidence. There’s not even one first-hand claim. It’s sad, frankly.
I’m not even going to deal seriously with your final four paragraphs, and quotes like this:
Well it appears that the mask has come off now, and that the Democrats have created a bit of a time-bomb situation for themselves..
This is – I’m sorry, and I don’t feel great about saying it to you – fantasy. And your entire last four paragraphs came off as a little unhinged. Who are the Democrats throwing “under the bus”, exactly? The Republican Representative who used his office to have ######## with minors in his page program? That same representative who led efforts to have his own behavior criminalized as if, obviously, he wasn’t a criminal by his own standards? The most hypocritical moment in recent congressional history? How on earth could Democrats, or any one of decent morals, *not* throw this person under the bus? Aren’t all the *conservative* complaints about Hastert complaining about *not* throwing this guy under the bus? Should Democrats *stand up* for probable felon, alcoholic, minor-homosexual-fornicator, and universal outcast Mark Foley?
And, if not,
what exactly are you talking about?
PS: forgot something.
In CBS News on Tuesday, correspondent Gloria Borger reported that there’s anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called a “network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice.†The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List–drawn up by gay politicos–is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network.
—-
Yeah right, David. The List was drawn up by Republicans. That makes sense. I guess they figured they needed a bigger challenge with the upcoming elections and all
Yes, Michael. Sorry to break your heart. House Republicans are preparing to blame the entire Foley scandal on an alledged cabal of gay Republican enabling aides, who they can then fire, to but distance between themselves and the alledged rogue cabal.
The first casualty of this plan is John Reynolds’ now-former and openly gay chief of staff.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001701.php
Okay, I think it’s over. Tom Reynolds’ fired chief of staff now says he told Hastert’s office about the Foley problem two years ago.
He also says he’s ready to talk to the FBI and spill the beans
Memo to you, Michael: It wasn’t mind-controlling Democrats who just made Tom Reynolds fire his gay chief of staff. Said gay chief of staff has now told the AP that he was telling Hastert about Foley’s problems in 2003. Hastert is behind the gay cabal meme to discredit said aide, one Kirk Fordham, before Fordham’s testimony costs Hastert his job.
Of course, if you can find any quote or press release from any Democratic Congressional figure anywhere taking responsibility for this little list, hell, any credible, informed third party tying this list to “Democrats” I’d be glad to consider retracting.
In the meantime, Hastert’s leadership on the gay cabal meme is eminently plausible, once you tune in to the specifics of the emerging fight for his job. And your setup here is a house of cards sans cards.
And not even close to the objective assessments I usually expect from you…
I don’t think in commenting on this part of the scandal that Michael is saying that one excuses or is on par with the other. However, it should be noted that both I and Michael and some very passionate Bush critics have noted that this was known by people in both parties not just Republicans. I should also note that that is probably true for a number of scandals that are probably going to erupt soon along these same kind of lines.
Also at this point the Hastert part is alleged as well, if one means he knew of anything more than Foley was gay and interested in pages. Given what we know, as opposed to what is suspected, he may have looked at it the same way he looked at the hundreds of straight politico’s who are interested in the pretty young things on Capitol Hill as well. Andrew Sullivan has a post on that (not endorsing, just passing it along.)Being interested is not a crime. I am not pronouncing him innocent, but if alleged is the standard then it should apply to him as well. Early cycle news judgment is often wrong, embarrassingly so.
So do you really believe the Democratic party hasn’t done this and covered it up? You think Foley is the only official to do this kind of thing? I bet there is worse, and the past seems to vindicate that, though most of it probably involves heterosexuals sleeping with pages and interns.
I have no dog in this fight between the parties, but come on, Michael is spot on about any moral preening among the Democrats and their treatment of homosexuals.
I am not sure how you make it out the comment was about Foley, especially given his prior post, it wasn’t. It was about gays. The party is encouraging and facilitating an attack on gay Republicans. Michael points out something quite important, this stuff spreads, gays in general will suffer on Capitol Hill for this. It in no way excuses Republicans doing this, but Michael has every right to point out the other side of the equation as well. Mona has a politically creepy, but accurate post about the way liberal/left/Democratic websites acting as if attraction to teens is pedophilia is very damaging and should stop.
That goes for “the list” as well. I don’t know how active within the gay community (or how much reading of its news, opinion and activist magazines) you have been over the years, but that list has been around for some time, and yes it was created by Democrats and leftists. It is nothing new and has been covered extensively over the years and debated within the gay community about how to use it or if it is even ethical. Well now we know one way it will be used. I don’t think Michael or Gay Patriot (or Andrew Sullivan in the past, and my guess is he will weigh in on this aspect soon as well)should be taken to task for pointing out this aspect and the vicious hypocrisy of many who are out to defeat Republicans. Criticizing these people doesn’t excuse anything the Republicans do.
I can only guess your reaction is because you think Michael is letting the Republicans off the hook, but I don’t think so. This is just the angle Michael is covering in this post. We aren’t a newspaper with dozens of reporters, we can only post so much. This story is being covered quite thoroughly, it isn’t our responsibility to give equal time to every aspect. Michael may do a post throwing Hastert under the bus for you down the road if he thinks it is warranted, but plenty of people are doing that already, Michael had a different angle he wanted to shine a light on. He wanted something different to discuss here. Unlike many we do not calibrate our posts to help or hinder our two major parties, we cover the parts of stories that we want to talk about at this site as time allows. How fair that is to one group or another is not given any thought at all. We almost never even communicate what we are posting or going to post about to enable us to do such a calculus. So if we were a sole source of opinion and news it would be a rather weird look at the world even from our viewpoint. It would hardly express what we think should be covered or said. We are not, so we will cover sides which we want to talk about knowing the rest of the world is covering it as well.
I think both sides come out of this smelling like fresh cow patties.
Yes, the onus and responsibility falls more on the Republicans for (not) cleaning their own house, but that shouldn’t have any bearing on whatever share of criticism the Democrats earn. Perhaps it is more of an incumbent problem than one limited to either side.
You want Hastert under the bus? No problem, I was ready to throw him there after the William Jefferson thing. But we’re gonna need a bigger bus. [/brody]
Right there with you on the Jefferson thing. In fact, this shows Hastert has been at minimum a bipartisan enabler, which is my whole problem with this Congress. For all the talk of bitterness between the parties on issue after issue we have seen them join together to protect pork, favored programs and institutional privilege. It has been a sorry spectacle all around.
If someone successfully demonstrates that Congressional Democrats knew about this – that they had evidence – and that they didn’t do anything about it – over a period of time greater than days – I’ll say that Mike was right, I was wrong, and those Democrats deserve to be blamed. Not equally to the blame on Hastert and the Republican House Leadership – Hastert is Foley’s boss, not some random democrat – but blamed nonetheless.
I don’t see any evidence of that so far despite links to the contrary.
That goes for “the list†as well. I don’t know how active within the gay community (or how much reading of its news, opinion and activist magazines) you have been over the years, but that list has been around for some time, and yes it was created by Democrats and leftists.
This is news to me. The list I’ve heard about in recent reports has been suggested as created by Republicans – or at least, about to be used by the House Republican leadership.
I’m not aware of any pre-existing list, but I have a feeling it was created by gay activist groups, not Democratic activist groups. There’s a difference. One that should be acknowledged before putting up posts claiming Democratic involvement in this scandal.
All very confusing… Someone needs to take the time and lay all of this out in a comprehensive story.
Hey, maybe someone should create a docudrama called, “The Path to Foleygate”.
That way, this whole thing can be blamed on the Dem’s in living color.
Cheers.
glasnost,
So I guess this means that the rest of your comment was a bit hasty. Fine, I have been guilty of it myself at times, but maybe that means Michael deserves a bit of slack don’t you think?
As for your two remaining issues, that is fair for the most part. It has been reported that this behavior was widely known amongst pages and staff. The social situation in DC is not walled off by party, especially not amongst gays. If the type of information of which Hastert was aware was widely known then it was known by people of both parties. Now that information from what I can see was no more alarming than lots of stuff that goes on up there, so I understand why it didn’t go further until recently.
That is not a defense, the entire way that pages and other young people are dealt with in DC is rather scandalous really, I just don’t see it as a Hastert problem. Both parties have consistently covered for their members, for all kinds of issues, not just this. It is an old complaint, and I am sure you tire of hearing it, but the Kennedy clan alone has enough abusive behavior of all types on its hands that has been sheltered to leave anyone who really looks at it sick.
Barney Frank allowed a prostitution ring to be run out of his basement for crying out loud. What about all the things we don’t know about?
More importantly Michael’s post is about how this stuff is not a one party issue and will turn around and bite the Democrats as well, or at least should. That is all to the good in my opinion, but by utilizing the anti-gay stuff, the pedophilia stuff it means the victims will move well beyond those who should be punished. That should bother you, it does me.
Scandal isn’t something which exists in any one party, we know it exists elsewhere in DC, so in deciding to go after Foley we should be careful to be scrupulous about it, but neither the Republicans or Democrats are.
As to the list, well I don’t know what to tell you, these things exist. While your distinction between gay activists and Democrats is important, nobody is blaming all Democrats, Michael is pointing out that such a group smear upon Republicans will backfire when the worm turns. The fact is that the organizations we are speaking of and circulating these lists are overwhelmingly Democrat. That doesn’t mean Democrats as a whole, but they are Democrats. If we get into the group smear game that fact is pretty relevant. Michael is arguing that is the wrong way to look at it, and it is. He isn’t smearing Democrats as a whole, he is pointing out that some are setting a ticking time bomb of their own and throwing gays under the bus as they do so. He may be wrong, but the point behind it is valid either way. Let us review Michael’s last point:
The post mostly addresses Democrats because that is the angle he is addressing, but the key is the bold. He doesn’t say Democrat or Republican, but politicians. Let us not be naive, Democrats are no better people than Republicans or for that matter libertarians. They may be right or wrong on policy depending on your outlook, but neither party should be assumed to have any more angels than the other. They do not.
I have no problem with a bunch of these people being thrown out of office, but like Michael I hate to see gays trampled in the rush. The Democrats claim (though like Michael I see little convincing evidence of it when push comes to shove) to be the friends of gays, maybe now would be a good time to prove it. That means no more pedophilia remarks, no clandestine campaign to out or investigate gays or any of that stuff. So far on one of the issues where I am at least rhetorically more with the Democrats they have let me down.
That means no more pedophilia remarks, no clandestine campaign to out or investigate gays or any of that stuff.
I don’t see a clandestine campaign to out, hunt for closeted gays, or investigate gays among Democrats. Where?
On the other hand, if closeted, secretly gay Republican -or Democratic – leaders are out on the front lines denouncing gay people and working against gay rights, they have made themselves fair game to be both outed and critized. Same if they were Democrats. Gay-bashing while pretending that you are not also a homosexual is both repellent and immensely dishonest. Everyone has the right to complain about that.
Democrats as a whole, he is pointing out that some are setting a ticking time bomb of their own and throwing gays under the bus as they do so.
Like I said, when the Democratic anti-gay witch hunt begins, let me know. It’s not to be confused with criticizing Foley. I don’t see any Democratic politicians circulating, discussing, or acting on a list. I see House Republican leaders doing this.
No one has a problem with openly gay politicians. But if you lie about your sexual orientation to your constituency, you’ve acted dishonestly. Immorally – for the lie. And you should get in trouble for it. I’m fine with gay people, but I won’t stand up for anyone who lies about their sexual orientation or habits to their constituents.
Obviously the first line is false, lots of people do, but I think you mean Democrats. I promise you that is not true either. Lots of Democrats do, but I am specifically talking about those who claim they don’t, so it really doesn’t matter.
As for your support of outing those who are conservative or not speaking out about gay rights, you and I will not see eye to eye on that. It is a despicable practice, but lets move away from my opinion to facts.
I’ll describe it again, but all the references to the fact he was gay, calling him a pedophile, exaggerating what happened and in that atmosphere demanding this be treated as a large scandal in the atmosphere they are helping create makes the inevitable pain the gay community on Capitol Hill in part the fault of Democrats. This is not being treated by the democrats as a story of one man acting inappropriately with a former page or pages, but as a great scandal. The only possible justification for that is he is gay.
This isn’t just my impression, to quote Mona for a definite non Republican shilling source of the same complaint:
And again:
Pelosi and a number of other politicians have fed this beast in just the manner that Mona is discussing. Some friends the left are being.
As for the list, the idea that it came from Republican’s or Conservatives was laughable on its face, and Michael was right to call Corn on that. If it had been Conservatives Corn would have certainly trumpeted the fact, but even beyond that anyone with a passing knowledge of the gay activist movement in Washington knew what “The List” was and who compiled it.
However, you don’t have to take my word for it, Corn has come clean:
Michael and I believe that tactic in an atmosphere like that being aided and abetted by many liberals and Democrats will backfire, but more importantly this is one area where we should have been able to expect better of Democrats and liberals more specifically in their concern for gay men. This is one area where one would like to think I could unambiguously say the Democratic party is better.I would like to say I am surprised, but for the same reasons I and Michael have already expressed I am not.
Well you asked for proof, David Corn has given it to you on “The List,” for the rest read liberal websites and listen to the politicians.
Well you asked for proof, David Corn has given it to you on “The List,†for the rest read liberal websites and listen to the politicians.
Baloney.
Gay Activists /= Democratic Party.
Furthermore, in one breath you’re condemning the Democratic party for… “treating this as a scandal.” – for the alledged harm it could be doing to gay people everywhere, I’m told –
and then in the next breath, you’re pretending that the gay activists who are forwarding this list around equal the Democratic Party!! And effectively hiding an example of gay activism working to expand the scandal at *its own risk*.
Furthermore, as both you and Michael have continued to distort and conflate, it isn’t about the left attacking gay politicians who don’t, quote, mindlessly hew the Democratic line, unquote. The left DOES love to bash Republican homosexuals who engage in gay-bashing while they are in fact secretly homosexual. The reason they love it is because of the glaring hypocrisy.
it’s revealed that Democrats knew just as much as anyone else about Foley’s escapades (and possibly more),
This statement remains uneqivocally inaccurate.
As for your support of outing those who are conservative or not speaking out about gay rights, you and I will not see eye to eye on that. It is a despicable practice,
Didn’t say that either. I support outing politicians who lie to their constituents. Period. Lying about your sexuality is not some magic realm where it becomes ok to lie to your constituents. If you lie, you deserve to be outed, regardless of your party or your political beliefs. However, democratic politicians who are not out tend not to actively demonize homosexuality, whereas republican politicians who are not out tend to do this.
I continue to find the attempt to blame any part of this on the left without merit. I think the idea that Democrats or the left would support any sort of generalized gay politican purge or any sexual orientation-wide punishments to be absurd. If more specific gay individuals get in trouble as a result of this scandal, they will be Republicans being punished by Republicans. And you and Michael will blame the Democrats for “piling on”.
Fine, but it smells from a mile away. For people supposedly not committed to partisanship, it seems from here like there’s a lot of reflexive b*tch-slapping of the left.
sigh. glasnost, fifteen-yard penalty, over-shrillness. What this site needs is a “modify post” button. It might extend my invitation to this site for… oh.. weeks.
I’ve specifically said I am not attacking the party. In fact in general I think attacking a party on most things outside of general ideological tendencies is pretty stupid. I am saying Democrats/liberals are doing this. Not the Party, or all Democrats. Are these people Republicans? No. I am saying that those engaged in this kind of thing are causing harm, yes I am, and they are and some Democrats have noted that fact, good for them.
You are the one doing the conflating not us. So that whole line of attack is BS. You seem to be so used to the partisan wars you can’t see the difference between criticizing those who deserve criticism and attacking the party. I attack the party for being wrong on a number of issues, I attack a number of Democrats for hypocrisy and other things. Which means that your remark about attacking gay politicians for being hypocrites to the extent they are has not raised my ire or Michael’s one bit. However that is often not true. Often they just disagree and are claimed to be acting hypocritically. Invading their privacy or more specifically their staffs is another issue. You need to stop reading us using the partisan template.
By the same token I cannot understand why we cannot point out the hypocrisy and destructiveness of the kinds of rhetoric emanating from many quarters right now.
As for attacking those who attack gay politicians who don’t hew the party line, yes they do. Period. They do the same for African Americans. The level of viciousness directed at these “traitors” is extraordinary and really inexcusable. Is that every Democrat? No. Is it tolerated, excused and even denied? Yes.
Uh, how so? You know that for a fact? The more we hear the less it seems the Republican leadership knew and the more it seems others (since you have a problem with noting they were Democrats) did. For example, the owners of the list.
As I said, we disagree, I consider it despicable and most of the people the attacks focus on are not elected politicians, but other figures.
I doubt you could prove that, and from my experience it isn’t even close to true. That is a rationalization based on a stereotype.
So, the gay activists who are passing on the list are not culpable if the list is used? So now left wing gay activists are not part of the left? From my vantage point if you eliminated gay activists, feminist groups, labor activists, environmental activists, etc., from the left there wouldn’t be much left of the left. Besides, Corn is not saying that the list is being dissemniatedPelosi and others banging the pedophile drum are not responsible for their rhetoric? Then who is?
As for picking on the left, well, we are generally libertarian oriented so that will happen. This instance however is not left-right oriented, Michael already tore into Foley, now we are criticizing the way many in the media and other political figures (who we might mention happen to be Democrats) are behaving after the fact.
Finally I will refer back to the end of the post. Michael was in this post specifically talking about Democrats, but he pointed out it is part of a pattern that is decidedly not a matter of party affiliation. Let me quote it again:
Finally, I never said we are not partisan, though I try to keep it from clouding my judgment about basic behavioral patterns of people. I am certainly partisan about liberty and liberty oriented politicians. Michael and Omar you will have to judge for yourself. I defy you to come up with a post of mine that discusses, outside of my irritation with the Webb campaign, anything about political races. I am partisan about issues. Gay rights is an issue I am partisan about. If that leads to more criticism of people you consider to be of the left in this particular instance I cannot help that. This should be an issue where the left and I should be on the same side, and some are. Unfortunately in this instance we are not to the extent we should, and unfortunately over the last hundred years the left’s record has been decidedly mixed. So I have more reason to criticize them than I would like.
As for you being welcome, you are not only welcome but intensely desired. However, I would suggest you take one bit of advice. The left has no great lock on virtue. They are not on average any better than religious conservatives, Republicans or any other group. They are just as likely to be corrupt, hypocritical, lustful, dishonest, greedy, racist, homophobic etc, as the next group. Left Right, libertarian, liberal and other labels are about policies. They may express a moral order, but there is no evidence on more general failings that any group is better than anyone else. That is a misperception social conservatives make all the time as well. So whatever scandal hits the Republicans it is certain that other things just as bad are being done by Democrats. Many on the left see an opportunity to exploit this and they are saying and doing things to accomplish that goal, regardless of the victims or the hypocrisy. Nothing new there, I can’t even understand why it would surprise you. Wouldn’t the Republicans do that kind of thing as well? Sure they would. Maybe differently, but they would do it and Democrats and liberals are no better people. So my advice is stop trying to see the world as if your compatriots and political allies are any better than the average Republican. It’ll lead to a lot less stress and anger.
Finally go read Gay Patriot. Read the last week of the posts there. At least then you might have an idea of what we are talking about. This is not about hypocritical politicians, this is about people who generally agree with the party who are staffers and gay. The hope is this will arouse social conservative dissatisfaction and help in November. I am not sure it will work, But if it does it is these gay men and women whose lives will be altered. They don’t care because the victims are conservative, not because they are being hypocritical.
They seem to think the effort will backfire, that social conservatives are not quite the bigots they are made out to be (and I agree about that) and will not take the bait. That doesn’t make it any less despicable and I hope they are right. I don’t ask you to agree with all of their positions, just understand you can be conservative, gay and not a hypocrite and see who is really being attacked.
Thought you guys would find this interesting. It’s what passes for lucid, rational discussion on Greenwald’s blog:
Brilliant stuff, eh? Especially since the US has elected exactly 1 Catholic President (whom we then went on to assasinate) and 0 Jewish Presidents. Definitely the hallmarks of a vast Jewish-Vatican conspiracy.
I don’t which is funnier: that a devout muslim is the one brought such craven anti-Christian nonsense to my attention (with the appropriate disapproval), or that you captured the glaring hole in the idiot’s argument and then drew a giant red circle around it for all to see. Either way … “Heh!”
Heh, indeed. Glad you enjoyed, Michael. This is a BIG part of the reason I never bother with Glenn Greenwald (or his mindless, fever-swamp sycophants). If you read the other comments on that post, the author of the one I quoted will begin to seem like a bit of a dangerous intellectual rather than the paranoid, delusional crackpot that he would be on just about any other site (except maybe DU; those guys are scary).
PS My favorite part was the bit about the US becoming the next Holy Roman Empire.
Well, in a way, we are already like the HRE in that we are neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire.
Lol! Quite true, quite true.
Pingback: The Conjecturer » Outside Sources: A Secondhand Conjecture
Pingback: A Second Hand Conjecture » The List
Linking quite nicely to my anti-Soros piece and your post here, Michael is this : http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5907&search=george
Funny that behind almost every Democrat power play, there is the hand of George Soros.
Pingback: A Second Hand Conjecture » Okay, I was wrong. Glenn Reynolds is anti-gay
Pingback: A Second Hand Conjecture » Foley Wrap Up