Sam Lancaster, Hastert's Director of Speaker Operations, others-- OUTED!

[Ian David]

Monday, October 09, 2006
Call them out.....





Update: I've read in the comments that Meachum left the House staff recently. That doesn't mean the Ethics Committee should let him off the hook. What did Meachum know and when did he know it? He worked for a FLORIDA GOP Congressman and I have a feeling he wasn't exactly naive to the situation.

Better haul them into the ethics investigators, just in case

By: Michael Rogers | permanent link |

More:
http://www.blogactive.com/2006/10/call-them-out.html

[acmavm]

1. For a party with an anti-gay agenda they sure have a lot

of gay members and enablers.

And those people should be ashamed of themselves.

[MrModerate]

2. I don't quite get it. Outside of being on the Congressional payroll . . .

(And hence having an interest in the status quo), why are these two guys targeted (or "outed" as the headline says)?

[Ian David]

3. Imagine it's 1940, and you found out members of Hitler's staff were Jewish

And that those people were actively complicit in the genocide of their own people.

Wouldn't you turn them in?

[MrModerate]

4. Who's the "you" in the scenario you describe above?

You see, I've never heard of these two before, have no information about them other than the fact that they've been cited by this Web site.

[Ian David]

6. He's been pretty reliable before. Let's see how it shakes out. n/t

[maine_raptor]

5. One problem with this.

I don't give an Ann Coulter fuck about if these two are or aren't gay.

But what I do see by "outing" all these gay Pugs is the start of a "wonderful" (:sarcasm:) little cover story for Denny and his cronies:

"They didn't tell me because they are all GAY. It's a VAST GAY-WING CONSPIRACY!!!!"

Sorry, but that just takes away from the real reason they let Foley slide........Anything to maintain control of the House.

[Ian David]

8. That's a very good point, and one way it could all backfire.

On the other hand, going on an anti-gay witch-hunt within their own party is certain to remove probably at least three senators and twice that many house members from the GOP.

What irony that the Republickers, whose bread-and-butter is gay bashing, could find themselves undone by... gay-bashing!

The question is-- will it be worth the cost?

[maine_raptor]

10. Look, a "Witch Hunt" is not a Good Thing, right?

Try remembering/reading up on Joe McCarthy....or take a trip to Salem, Mass some time.

Your question; "will it be worth the cost" is just another way of saying "The Ends Justify the Means".

Now as much as the mental image of a bunch of freepers checking under their beds each night to make sure the Gay Monster ain't under there is worthy of a chuckle or two, the idea of an an all-out outing within the halls and closets of Congress gives me pause.

Why? Because every Witch Hunt in History has accomplished 3 things:

1) Never did anything to help the "problem".

2) Harmed the innocent

3) Reinforced Authority within Society.


Tis the third that worries me.

[Ian David]

12. All very good points.

But as long as The Democratic Party refuses to play that game, I don't have a moral or ethical problem with Republickers purging gays from their own party.

What concerns me is if Republicans turn around and start trying to "out" Democrats.

And even then, while it may be strategically disasterous to have a gay purge of Democrats, I have no sympathy for any Democrat who voted with the Repukes to ban gay marriage.

Any gay person who voted in favor of banning gay marriage deserves to be outed.

[maine_raptor]

14. What do you mean "IF"?

As in "What concerns me is if Republicans turn around and start trying to "out" Democrats."


Of course they will. They'd be politically stupid not to.

And to top it off, they'd turn the focus to the Dem's only. ("Psst, Pass it On; Hillary's a Lessbo!")

I understand what you are saying about "turncoats", but to me "outing" is a personal decision.

Too many lives ruined by this sort of stuff and it leads down an ugly path. For me, human freedom is paramount and that includes the freedom to be a hypocrite. The only solution for me, when it comes to politicians, is to vote them out. If you want to kick some guys out of Congress because they voted against gay marriage, fine. Do it for that then. You don't need to know what they do or who or what they do it with when the bedroom door is closed.

[luckyleftyme2]

21. you can't have it both ways

Morals are morals,you can't have it both ways.WHEN A 50 YEAR OLD male or female
pursues a child.And the law describes a person younger than 18 a child.YOUare a child until the age of 18.(the age to vote)they are morally corupt.
I think it despicable for an elder to pursue a child.But i also think anyone who is responsible or holds a responsible position(in this case hastert) is just as quilty if they fail to follow up on information and mis-conduct continues.
therefore hastert is quilty and Should go as well as others whose names will come out!

take the trash out! VOTE DEMOCRAT IN NOVEMBER!

[maine_raptor]

24. What I was talking about is different.

Of course a 50+ human hitting on a barely legal human is if not legal, at the least morally reprehensible. And those complicit covering it up are equally reprehensible.


What I'm talking about is "outing" someone who has done no other wrong other than act as a political hypocrite.

And BTW: I've voted a straight ticket ever since 1972.

Any political party that nominated Richard Nixon 3 times for President is one I prefer not to support.

[EST]

13. Yeah, the whole thing makes me sick.

It all keeps coming around to the plaintive question-

Surely the closeted members of the GOP are as intelligent as are we and capable of noticing the, to me, inescapable fact that the powers that be are not at all interested in the goals they claim to be the guiding lights of their "movement."

This piece of admittedly simplistic reasoning informs me that anyone above the Joe and Gene sixpack in the publiclown party is culpable for the direction of that party and should be taken to task for the horrid results.

Life is way too complicated. I regret ever becoming involved in politics, although it was necessary and important. The gut-wrenching betrayals and counter betrayals are completely foreign to any notion of human decency. Piss on 'em all.

[EST]

9. What you say make some sense, however, the gang of

predators is/was already working up to that claim and, in some cases, using it.
I am not in favor of outing gays against their will, but history is full of turncoats who betray their fellows, often resulting, in times of conflict, in imprisonment or death for the unfortunate victims.

Perhaps it's my revenge bone acting up, but I think entrenched agents, in this case, gays, who are actively working for the demise of fellow beings, in this case, gays, deserve whatever fate befalls them.
Quislings are seldom welcome.

[JerseygirlCT]

27. Let Foley slide, and demonize homosexuals at the same time

It's what they're after.

[BootinUp]

7. Not sure I agree with this tactic.

From a political angle or an ethical one.

[Ian David]

11. I have mixed feelings, too. But here's Mike Rogers talking for himself

Mike Rogers appears on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News

by PageOneQ

Mike Rogers, blogACTIVE and PageOneQ.com editor and publisher, appeared Monday on FOX News' The O'Reilly Factor with host Bill O'Reilly. They discussed the effects the growing Mark Foley scandal, speculation around which O'Reilly described as "partisan nonsense."

"I fear that the homosexual community in America is going to be damaged by this whole thing," O'Reilly stated, before asking Rogers if he agreed. "I think that America is able to tell the difference between gay men and closeted gay men who make unhealthy psychological decisions," replied Rogers.

Rogers told O'Reilly that he will be releasing more names of closeted members of the Senate and House before election day. O'Reilly advised Rogers to "get on the issues," to which Rogers replied, "I am... and their hypocrisy."

More (and video):
http://pageoneq.com/news/2006/fox_101006.html

[MaineDem]

15. I don't care if someone is gay

I do care if someone is a pedophile or an enabler. Being gay does not make one a pedophile. That's the message we have to get out there.

I think we're on a slippery slope if we commend people for outing gays.

[MrModerate]

16. OK, I've finally figured out what this is all about . . .

Kick me for being slow on the uptake.

This elicits a HELL NO response from me. Declaring one's sexuality is absolutely a personal decision. I don't care if a person is a public figure or not, it's their choice to talk about their sexuality -- or not -- and no one else's. One's sexual behavior is utterly irrelevant except to that person's partners or if that behavior is illegal, irresponsible, or unwelcomed.

A third party "revealing" someone's orientation against their will is a profound violation of their rights to privacy and should not be countenanced.

[beaconess]

23. THANK you! Chasing around after gay people trying to out them

makes us as bad as those we condemn. People have all sorts of reasons for not revealing their sexuality (beside the fact that it's nobody's damned business), many of which have nothing to do with politics. We shouldn't turn into self-righteous avengers pointing our fingers at people. It's ugly, cruel and petty.

[madfloridian]

17. He is outing the enablers.

He is not outing them just because they are gay. He is outing the ones who have enabled this administration to use the gay community as a scapegoat.

[onenote]

18. there are plenty of straight repubs who are enablers too

so why make an issue out of whether or not someone is gay?

[Ian David]

19. There is no such thing as a Gay Republican

There are only Gay People with an Authoritarian Personality Disorder that has caused them to join the Republick Party.

Those people need help.

The sooner they abandon the Republicker Lifestyle, the better.

They need an intervention.

With prayer and therapy, so-called Gay "Republicans" can become productive, functioning, Democratic members of society.

[luckyleftyme2]

22. Oreilly-his song changes with wind

If you done a little research,Oreilly has been for an against gay's depending on which will help his ratings that week!

[Ian David]

25. He once said he was against expelling the daughter of two lesbians...

from a Catholic private school, but that it was justified because the parents told the school they were gay.

He said if the parents hadn't told anyone they were gay, he'd have no trouble with it.

Because, after all, he doesn't go around telling people he's straight.

So, I tried to call-in to his show to ask what happens when both mommies show-up for parent-teacher conferences together. Or to attend their daughter's piano recital.

How does the daughter explain the two mommies without either lying or saying, "these are my mommies?"

I never got through to the call screener. The lines were too jammed.

And apparently neither Bill nor any of his callers pointed out that when he and his wife show-up at school functions together, nobody asks if they're straight.

But if a girl shows-up with two mommies... someone's gonna ask.

Although gay people actually WANTING to be Catholic just simply amazes me. It's like a Jew wanting to be a Nazi.

The Catholic Church hates gay people-- so why would a gay person stick around? The Unitarians are nice. The United Church of Christ is nice.

The very existence of Gay Catholics is just a testament to what a powerfully addictive opiate of the masses Religion actually is. People will endure such abuse to get their fix from their favorite god-pusher.

[windbreeze]

20. I certainly hope....

that Michael Rogers is NOT a Democrat...even though he states these two need to be investigated because of probable knowledge of the situation with Foley...I hope that's not just a red herring thrown in there to cover his own backside for outing them because they are gay...

guess the Halloween season is the season to use for a witch hunt...but it makes me feel just a tad dirty, in a sleazy sort of way..
wb

[onenote]

26. exactly -- Rogers stated justification is bunk

THe only reason Rogers gives for outing these two staffers is that, as well-paid senior staffers, they have a vested interest in protecting Mark Foley in order to protect the repub majority. Well, every well paid repub staffer had exactly the same interest in protecting the repub majority (and thus protecting their jobs). Why single these two out for investigation over and above any other staffer? Other than gay witch hunting, of course.