Watch if this doesn't happen: Repugs will attack homosexuals

[JCMach1]

PURGE them from the party (if you will) to placate the right-wing base. The long-knives will come out for sure.

Watch how they frame the issue in the coming days.

[Kagemusha]

1. So, how many people in the base knew that all the top GOP staffers

happened to be either closet or open homosexuals?

Is this not er, news to them?

[JCMach1]

3. doesn't matter they are either gone, or so deep back to the closet

their own lover won't know they are gay...

[waiting for hope]

2. That will only win

them over to our side....What's up with those Colorado Republican Gays? I have yet to figure that one out.

[JohnnyLib2]

4. Remembering college b.s. sessions with liberal friends--

one topic was, "what if all came out at once? Would it change the culture?" Looks like we might find out this year.

[kentuck]

5. Of course they will..

They are desperate.

[MADem]

6. No, they will attack DEMOCRATS. Rove has already put the word out.

DEMOCRATS will be blamed, even though we have no power to set agendas, only one in-the-dark rep on the page board, and we weren't the party that GUTTED the Ethics Committee.

Democrats and fair thinkers everywhere need to hoist the bullshit pennant, early and often.

-... ..- .-.. .-.. ... .... .. -

[pat_k]

7. Republicans in Congress tolerating homosexuals in their midst is ALL

. . .this is about for them.

The fury and unraveling of the rank and file party apparatus and the voters who have stuck with the reactionary right has almost nothing to do with covering up Foley's predatory behavior, it is ALL about their homophobia.

And these folks maximize everything. If Republicans in Congress were harboring one, they must be harboring dozens!

It is going to get worse for them. From Scarobourgh last night (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15141838/):

LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, POLITICAL ANALYST
. . .there's a new star to this story every day, Joe. Today‘s star was
Fordham. Tomorrow's might be someone else at the staff level. And I think
what the Republican base is going to be shocked by over the next week or so this is the next stage of this story as it will develop—is how many closeted gay Republican men were involved in processing this information about the closeted gay man, Mark Foley, when these stories emerged in the House of Representatives
. . .

SCARBOROUGH: And we're going to talk about that in our next segment, actually, because I—there are several closeted gay Republicans in Washington. I'm going to talk to Al Franken about that next segment. But Ana...

O'DONNELL: But Joe, this is very, very important piece of the story. This is going to be part of where we track the information about how it flowed. And it' going to be a very important question on the staff level, not necessarily on the elected level. But people are going— Republican base is going to be shocked

SCARBOROUGH: And I...
O‘DONNELL: ...n they discover within a week where the closetted gay men are positioned in this story who have not yet been revealed

SCARBOROUGH: And Ana, you were talking about—earlier with me—we were talking about the fact that the Republican Party has some issues on the gay issue.

ANA MARIE COX, WASHINGTON EDITOR, TIME.COM: They do. They have a kind of split personality about it. On the one hand, they have a base who is largely, not to be put too fine point on it, pretty homophobic, and they really count on that. They got out the vote by campaigning against gay marriage in the past few years.

And on the other hand, they have a somewhat more sophisticated, somewhat more worldly, let‘s say, elected leadership who not only know gay people but know gay Republicans and work with gay Republicans. And Lawrence is right. At the staff level, the House has quite a few gay people. And those are the people—are the "Vevet Mafia" of the House, of the Hilll, and those are the people that are counted on to keep the other closeted members of Congress and staff members in line, and that is how they tried to deal with Foley this time around.
. . .

I just want to stress, today it moved to the staff level. It's going to stay now at the staff level for the next news cycle. This is now a very, very important staff credibility issue. The battle between Kirk Fordham and Scott Palmer, who, as reported in the initial report tonight on your show--Scott Palmer, chief of staff for Denny Hastert, who is denying, very specifically denying that he was ever told that there was a problem with Foley by Fordham. Now, that is a crucial--those two guys are going to become the stars of this story over the next couple of days, and it's going to make the story something different.

As far back as 2004 reports identified Kirk Fordam as gay (e.g., http://www.washblade.com/2004/7-23/news/national/antigaysen.cfm ).

O'Donnell doesn't talk through his hat. If it isn't already out there (haven't been watching today), Scott Palmer may be next if only by association. Don't know whether it is the same guy, but came across this from http://www.dcfrontrunners.org/news2003.html">DCFR News in 2003:

". . Highlights of the race included Scott Walsberger finishing 17th overall, Blake Rushin finishing 2nd in her division, Scott Palmer injuring his leg at mile 1 but still finishing. . ."

And

DC Front Runners is a road-running and walking club for gay men, lesbians, and friends in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. Membership is open to all people regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, or athletic ability.

The wave of reaction from "out there" hasn't even begun. Right now they are in shock. Anger will follow.

It's ironic, the same thing Republicans manipulate to win elections (abhorrence of homosexuals in the core of their core) will probably bring them down.

Heads are exploding among the people who make up the Republican apparatus in every state. These folks are NOT going to be working for or stealing elections for the Republicans this time around.

[Kagemusha]

8. I can't change the fact they don't care for gays (even those among them).

But if disgust over harboring all these gays makes parts of the Republican electoral base stay home, let them stay home. It's better for the country that they do. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is not something I'm in any position to complain about.

[pat_k]

9. Irony escapes them, but the thing they manipulate to take power (homophobi

. . .will probably bring them down.

What a sorry state of affairs for the nation.

Destroy the Constitution, they barely make a peep; but tolerate a gay chief of staff and it's game over.

[bryant69]

10. That seems very very likely

The religious right would already like to do that, and this gives them a good excuse.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Karenina]

11. Wrong tense.

WILL attack??? Have attacked... Continue attacking... Will INCREASE attacks...

[pat_k]

13. Preying on pages has little to do with it -- It is homophobic heads that

. . are exploding.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2323080&mesg_id=2323080

[Karenina]

14. Homophobic closet queens.

Frankly, back in the day on Seventh Ave. So. I would trust an openly drug-addicted, transgendered transvestite further than a guy with a tan line on his ring finger.

The crew who are grabbing the headlines DO NOT have ANYTHING in common with our family, friends and community members we describe as "gay." They are ROY COHN types. If you do not recognize the name, please do Google it.

[pat_k]

16. This Kos diary echos you post -- It covers the Gannon connections, but

. . .provides insights for those who are unfamiliar with the network of Cohnist types.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/19/204254/937

[TheDonkey]

12. I believe Buchanan was on MSNBC saying gays shouldn't be in Congress

start preheating the ovens, when you deal with these dirtbag conservatives.

[pat_k]

15. Poor old Pat., he's yelling "these priests. . . their victims are boys!"

. . .as if that "proves" homosexuals are likely to abuse boys.

For example from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15128915/">Hardball

". . .It was a red flag knowing this guy's gay. And the truth is, Tony Perkins has a point. We know, Chris, in the Catholic Church, you got all these priests, and something like 85 percent or 90 percent of their victims are teenage boys, for heaven‘s sakes, and all the victimizers are men. That's reality.

Poor Pat has lost his marbles on this one. The numbers he quotes are higher than the highest estimates, even if you lump together pedophilia and abuse of teenagers (which are in fact different classes of behavior).

He has also apparently forgotten that there aren't many Altar Girls (Pope didn't even allow until 1994).

There are other forces at work too.

The numbers are difficult to nail down, but some males who are plagued by sexual urges that are universally viewed as deviant (e.g., toward pre-pubescent children who are by definition incapable of consent) or are widely condemned (e.g., desire for mutually consensual sex with sexually mature males) seek refuge in the celibacy of the Priesthood. As a consequence, two independent groups, pedophiles and homosexuals, tend to be overrepresented in the Priesthood.

Tragically, people like Pat who are inclined to believe homosexuals are depraved look at the overrepresentation of homosexuals in the Catholic Church and decide that THAT is the reason there is "so much" abuse of young boys. It just doesn't occur to them that a completely separate group, pedophiles, are also overrepresented because some believed/hoped their vow of celibacy would save them from acting on their urges.

Perhaps it is not surprising when the same attitude/belief is reflected in the http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html">response of the Church itself (Pope Benedict is reportedly preparing to forbid homosexuals who get the call from answering it.)

Unfortunately for who took the vow with hopes of keeping their pedophilia in check, their duties actually put them in a trusted position from which they could abuse undetected.

[gollygee]

18. Yes, girls are sexually abused too

and he shouldn't assume that anyone who sexually abuses a boy is gay. That isn't necessarily the case. Child sexual abuse is much more complicated than that. The two issues really aren't related.

[pat_k]

19. And as I noted, WRT church, he ignores fact that Altar Girls are rare. . .

. . .and so overrepresentation of boy victims of pedophile Priests is accounted for by access alone.

[gollygee]

20. Yeah well you're using logic

And the facts have a well-known liberal bias.

[ComerPerro]

17. Tough to call, I think they will try to have it both ways as usual

and, no, that's not a pun about sexual orientation, lol.

They will want to purge homosexuals from their party, but at the same time they try to run on some sort of "big tent" philosophy. Granted, its not true, but if you watch their conventions and just took everything they said as literal truth, you would think they were progressive, with the lies they tell about themselves.

So, I think they will also want to try to make it look like Dems are hypocrites, that we somehow hate homosexuals and we think all homosexuals are pedophiles, or that we attack Foley simply because he is gay.


Consider: When we attack Condi or Powell, they say that Dems are hyocrites, that we can't stand minority Republicans, that we think we own all minorities, etc.


They will want to be able to say the same thing about homosexuals.


so they will find some way (with media help) of getting a happy medium, where they can pose as a big tent and open party that embraces (no pun intended) homosexuals and welcomes them, but still keeps them at a distance.


you know, hate the sinner, not the sin.


"We don't hate gays, we just hate that they are gay, and we want to help them"

[guinivere]

21. It has already started.

Down in the 'jumping up and down in my chair (prank story)' thread. There's a link, but if you would rather not, someone wrote a wonderful summary. All sorts of homophobic comments from the freepers.