Gay Activist Rogers Outs Top Hastert Staffer Sam Lancaster as Gay

[Dems Will Win]

Mike Rogers of Blogactive just outed Hastert's Chief of Speaker Operations, which is a very powerful position: Sam Lancaster. Rogers charges a closeted gay "velvet mafia" runs the Speaker's office and to keep it all in the closet the so-called Pink Elephants covered up the Foley scandal. Rogers also charges this is just the tip of the iceberg and there are other Republican congressmen who have transgressed with the pages.

http://www.blogactive.com


Pete Meachum - Who just left Congress!

Rogers also outs Pete Meachum, Chief of Staff for Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL). He believes both Lancaster and Meachum knew about Foley.

Rogers is telling the GOP fundies they have been betrayed by this Velvet Mafia on a number of social issues. That's why the Christian homophobe agenda went basically nowhere over the last few years, for example.

IF YOU WANT TO UNCOVER THE REAL COVERUP HERE, RECOMMEND.

Do you think ROgers is right to do this, given the Velvet Mafia is still covering up for child predators??

[mondo joe]

1. Excellent. Out every last one of the bastards.

But more importantly, out the GOP "elites" to their fundy base.

[jhuth at work]

2. Nice. How many more are on the list, I wonder.

[Whoa_Nelly]

3. I could give a rat's ass about who is or isn't gay

But, I do care when people cover up for pederasts, such as Foley.

It is political when someone does this to try to keep a party in power. Yet, it goes beyond politics when it's about covering for anyone who exploits and/or otherwise abuses children and underage teens. It's criminal by law, and by any current western civilization ethics and morals.

[pampango]

113. We should be outing pederasts and those guilty of cover ups, not gays.

I am having a difficult time adopting the strategy of outing gays after decades of considering it a disgusting RW tactic. Guess I don't have that "Inside the Beltway" politics is everything mentality.

[sam sarrha]

152. they are outing people who eat their own, so to speak.. their actions are

illegal and damaging to the country first, second the fact that they are gay is and running a McCarthyesque program of persecution of other gays is what is REALLY OFFENSIVE..!!! while they rake in the big paychecks for causing suffering to other gays.

I dont see ANYTHING wrong with that.. they cant use 'Gay' as a shield for despicable actions against other gays.

[pampango]

154. I am one of those that the revolution will consume when it arrives.

I live by certain rules that I can't drop and then pick up again later. I believe that outing gays is an immoral tactic, calling blacks "n....."is offensive even in they are sell-outs, calling women "sluts", "whores" or "bitches", even if the are RW politicians, is just some of the things that I cannot make myself do.

The revolution needs guys and gals that can use the tactics that we used to denounce the other side for using, in order to win the election or bring on the brighter society. I support your goals, but I can't support your tactics. When the revolution decides that it no longer needs wimpy supporters like me, I promise to go quietly (hey, I'm wimpy).

[sam sarrha]

160. i really dont think we are referring to you.. only to Hypocrites who use

power to hurt others, and at the same time profess not to be the the Others.. they denounce and seriously harm in the process.

i think if someone was professing to be a Recovering Alcoholic and using his power acquired by his sobriety to deny practicing alcoholics their civil rights and the right to marry, etc by declaring their behavior an abomination to gOD, etc etc... and i new he was drinking.. i would out him,

i would be morally and ethically required to do so.. as i feel the gay activists are doing to Foley and the rest of the lying bigots.. who are profiting from the suffering of others

[pampango]

166. Understood. Just can't do it myself. Good luck putting the gay-outing

genie back in the bottle after the election. If you can do it, then there is no permanent harm done and plenty of good by getting the Dem's back in power.

By the way, I think there is a difference between recovering alcoholics returning to drinking and gays. Most would not oppose using a candidate's current behavior which they should have some control over, whether it is drinking, wife beating, drunk driving, pedophilia, etc. to expose hypocrisy in their private and public lives. Using the exposure of sexual orientation, which you are born with, that a person has chosen to keep private is a tactic that I cannot accept.

[helderheid]

157. THANK YOU

[Cha]

130. Exactly and not only that but "it's

the Hypocricy. Stupid"!

[plcdude]

4. things that make you go

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[cynatnite]

5. How does he know these people are gay? n/t

[Cha]

131. I was wondering, too, but I figured

they wouldn't do it if they 100% certain.

[donheld]

148. He may have run into him in Gay bars etc.

He may know someone who dated or slept with him. This stuff gets around.

[GOTV]

6. I see nothing about this in the news yet n/t

[Lex]

7. The sexual orientation of the people who covered for Foley is irrelevant.

However, I do hate the hypocrisy of one being a Republican and a closeted homosexual. That just perpetuates the feeling that it's something to be ashamed of.

[JudyM]

178. Thank you! n/t

[Garbo 2004]

8. I don't think Rogers really thinks that "velvet mafia" betrayed fundies,

although no doubt how the GOP will spin it, blame the gay staff and claim the Congresscriters knew nothing and are blameless.

The real point is that the GOP politicians are hypocrites, they have gay folks on staff and don't have a problem with it, but they use anti-gay rhetoric to whip up the fundies, as Tucker Carlson said, purely as a cynical ploy to pander to the fundies.

Even "man on dog" Santorum has an openly gay staffer as his Director of Communications.

Rogers' problem certainly is with the gay staff who willingly serve these Repubs whose anti-gay rhetoric foments hate.

[cynatnite]

9. So he's going after the staff rather than the politicians...

yeah, that makes sense :eyes:

[mondo joe]

15. Who appoints the staff? The politician.

It's relevant.

[cynatnite]

17. How is it relevant?

Will this improve rights for gays? Will this lower the anti-gay rhetoric?

You can only hope it does while people who are only staffers are outed based on who knows what sort of 'evidence'.

[mondo joe]

19. The relevance is how the politician works.

Who s/he appoints. How s/he staffs. And how it holds up to her/his public statements.

Do you not believe in a free press with a duty to inform the electorate?

[cynatnite]

22. Oh, please...

this has nothing to do with a free press. This is about revenge. Getting back at repukes for their anti-gay agenda and outing their staffs.

I hate to break it to you, but the only news this will make is that dems are digging into the personal lives of the repuke's personal staff...and that will be a surprise to me if there is even that much.

[mondo joe]

38. Not revenge - just old fashioned political and conflict.

You can "break" anything you like to me - I don't think your opinion reflects reality.

[cynatnite]

43. J. Edgar Hoover thought the same thing...

when he dug into the personal lives of not only private citizens, but also celebs. McCarthy thought his opinion reflected reality, too.

At the Salem Witch trials, many of those people thought their opinion was realistic as well.

So far, precedence isn't on your side.

I never imagined there'd be a witch hunt for gays conducted by those I usually agree with.

[mondo joe]

45. I don't know why you keep confusing the federal govt with the press.

We have rights to privacy from government intrusion.

There is no such right regarding the press.

[cynatnite]

49. Now, that's a load of crap...

everyone has the right to privacy.

Sure, those in the public eye do lose some of that, but it doesn't mean that we have the right to know what goes on behind closed doors in the privacy of their own homes.

Besides, these are staff members...not public officials.

[mondo joe]

50. Which right of privacy from the press do you think you have?

Please be specific.

[cynatnite]

54. So are you saying we don't have a right to privacy?

That there are NO lines in the sand for the press not to cross? That EVERYTHING in one's life is fair game including their family members...children, etc.

:eyes: The logic escapes me totally.

[mondo joe]

56. We have a right to privacy from government intrusion.

Absolutely.

We have some other rights of privacy as well - the press can't, for example, enter your home without your consent.

Beyond that we pretty much have a free press.

If you know of some other legal standard, by all means provide it please.

[kath]

129. Not a witch hunt for gays. A hunt for HYPOCRITES.

It's not about their sexual orientation, it's all about their hypocrisy.

[Cha]

132. Precisely! I don't know why

that's so hard to understand for some?

[Catrina]

99. You may be wrong. Ed Schultz just had this blogger on his show

He claims that he will 'out' one anti-gay Republican gay every day. He is gay himself, and is extremely angry about the public anti-gay agenda of the Republican party, and views closeted gays in the party who support that agenda as extremely threatening to gays everywhere.

He says he will not out anyone who has not participated in the attacks on gay Americans.

He also said that he will out not only staffers, but also elected Republican officials, some who are Congressmen.

He gave his website address to Ed's audience. I imagine members of the media may be very interested in this information even if they do not check out his claims and report them on the news, if true.

Now that it is out there on the 'tubes' it's going to eventually find its way into the news, imo. Especially if Ed Schultz and others are giving it airtime.

This information will demonstrate beyond a doubt that the Republican Party's public face regarding gay issues, has been at the very least, intensely hypocritical and extremely deceptive. It is apparent that privately many of them are as liberal about gays as Democrats. The only difference is, Democrats are honest and open it, and Republicans are extremely dishonest.

Ultimately, I think this will help gays. It will expose the futility and even the danger of isolating and targeting any group of people (as if we shouldn't know this already). By forcing Conservative gays into keeping their orientation secret, it made them vulnerable to bribery and threats of exposure. This in turn when in positions of power, presents a threat to security.

The US cannot tolerate this kind of oppression of any group of American citizens. Open government, freedom to be who we are openly, prevents what the Republican Party is now facing. They brought it on themselves. It would be ironic if it was their own behavior which ends discrimination against gays after all this is over.

On the good side, it's really nice to know that the Republican Speaker of the House is not anti-gay after all. It's too bad he had other faults, ie, a dishonest and cowardly nature, that prevented him from standing up for those he apparently respected enough to put in positions of trust. That makes him both a hypocrite and a coward, which sort of cancels out his more liberal tendencies.

If handled properly, as more and more Republicans are revealed to be gay, this could be the beginning of the end of the archaic and unconstitutional Religious Fundamentalist targeting of US citizens simply because of their sexual orientation.

I hope it opens up a real debate on the subject with the end result being that all Americans should be respected and protected by the Constitution and then we can move on out of the dark ages and start dealing with some of the real threats to both the nation and the planet. This issue needs a quick and decisive resolution. It's a no-brainer, really.

[LeahD]

141. Excellent post - thanks. n/t

[onenote]

27. so secretaries, interns etc. all fair game too?

Anyone who works for the elected official? What about the brother/sister/child of an elected official? Or of a staffer for an elected official. Exactly what is the rationale for drawing the line at a particular point?

I can see the rationale for outing an elected official because, in effect, that person has misrepresented themselves to the electorate. Staffers are not public persona and are not fair game imo.

[mondo joe]

40. What is the point for anything else?

I don't see any reason to treat this issue differently than any other.

[cynatnite]

55. no, because you support wanting to hurt as many people as possible...

in order to make a point.

It must be hard work trying to justify this.

[mondo joe]

58. Justify it? The only justification necessary is that we have a free

press for the purpose of an informed electorate.

Nothing more than that is called for.

[Garbo 2004]

25. As I said, Rogers has a problem with the gay staffers whose work supports

their bosses' anti-gay hate rhetoric/agenda.

[onenote]

114. but that's not what this outing was about

His stated rationale makes no sense. He singled out these two gay staffers and claimed that they in particular should be investigated becasue they had a vested interest in protecting FOley so as to protect the repub majority. Well, every repub staffer, straight or gay, had exactly the same interest in protecting the repub majority, so in the context of this outing, the sexual orientation of these staffers was utterly irrelevant..

[LeahD]

140. Self delete - dupe info from above. n/t

[beyurslf]

10. YES! Out them ALL.

Hold nothing sacred and hold nothing back. They would do the same if they had the chance.

[cynatnite]

11. Yes, let's be as low and repugnant as the repukes...

out their staff members. That'll show them. :sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

14. Nothing low about an informed electorate.

The people have a right to know about their representatives.

[cynatnite]

18. These are not representatives...they are staff members...

big difference.

[mondo joe]

21. They are the appointees of the representative.

The people have a right to know.

[cynatnite]

24. Bullshit

the private lives of staff members are none of our business any more than it was when Clinton got a blowjob from Monica.

[mondo joe]

41. Not comperable at all.

Clinton's affair was not simply uncovered by the press. It was the outcome of an investigation by the federal government.

If you want to keep your life private, don't go into politics.

[cynatnite]

46. The staff members aren't in the public political arena...

And these people that are assumed to be gay are being investigated as well and it's not for the noble cause of freedom of the press. It's for revenge.

No one has said one solitary word about encouraging these people to come out on their own. No one has said a word about their friends or families that could be hurt by such a disclosure...especially if it turns out to be untrue.

[mondo joe]

47. They certainly are, as much as any cabinet member or other political

appointee.

I don't care if they come out on their own or not.

Everyone in politics has secrets come out.

[cynatnite]

51. so..staff member is equal to cabinet member...

wow!

[mondo joe]

52. Political appointees are political appointees.

If you can offer some other standard for what is a relevant appointment by a representative, please offer it.

[cynatnite]

57. If Hastert was as gay as a rainbow is bright...

and he got outed...I wouldn't have a problem with it. Anything he tried to do as far as anti-gay legislation or by way of rhetoric would be useless.

If his secretary or other staff member who isn't in the public eye was gay...they might get fired, but it won't change a thing...other than possibly hurting them and their loved ones.

That's where I stand.

[mondo joe]

60. You're welcome to your stance. No one is asking you to change it.

Fortunately, it is not really relevant.

[cynatnite]

63. No more than yours is relevant...

I'm not looking to diminish your opinion. You have a right to it. There is a level of hypocrisy and justifying hurting people who aren't in the public eye that's going on.

At it's most basic level it's wrong and outing staff members will not change what the repukes are doing.

[mondo joe]

66. Indeed. My blessing is neither called for nor necessary.

I'm just glad they're doing it.

At the most basic level it is 100% right.

[cynatnite]

70. And J. Edgar Hoover thanks you, too...

:sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

71. Still can't tell the diff between the government and the press, huh?

Too bad.

[cynatnite]

73. You're condoning the same tactics though n/t

[mondo joe]

76. Absolutely not. Reporting and govt spying do not use the same

tactics nor do they have the same power.

[cynatnite]

84. I never said power...the tactics are there...

digging into personal lives for motives seeking only to hurt someone...it changes no policy nor the repukes M.O.

[mondo joe]

86. Then you have a problem with the free press, because its

tactics are the same regardless of who they're reporting on.

[cynatnite]

87. So are you taking the same position that corporate press does?

It don't matter whether it's true or not...let's report it. IRRC a huge portion of the population sitll thinks Saddam had something to do with 9/11...thanks to the press who didn't bother to educate the public.

[mondo joe]

To the contrary - I believe in accurate reporting.

That includes this matter.

[cynatnite]

89. And how accurate is this information?

How do we know these people are gay? How did they get their information? Is it credible?

Let's hope it is accurate.

[mondo joe]

92. I'd suggest holding this to the same standard as any other

report. No double standard needed.

[onenote]

75. at the most basic level you believe its 100 percent right

I, and others here, have a different belief. You don't own the truth.

[mondo joe]

78. Funny that you'd respond to my statement about

the basic level, since it was in response to a similar statement just above! LOL!

[sendero]

151. Early in the thread..

... I was against your position. But as I read on, I agree you have a point.

The problem is figuring out "where the line is". Certainly, there is nothing "wrong" with outing a member of Congress who engages in hate rhetoric against his own "kind".

A staffer? Well, there are lots of levels of staff. I'd probably have no problem outing a high level staffer, that being anyone with direct access to the congressperson. However, some low level intern? Probably not.

Staffers help write policy and do other things to aid and abet their bosses. Interns make copies and stuff, and it's just not the same thing.

So, we might not agree exactly, but I think there has to be some kind of line here.

[RB TexLa]

23. People have a right to know the sexual preference of their elected

and those employed by them? That's crazy.

[mondo joe]

42. People have the right to know if their reps are hypocrites.

Don't they?

[cynatnite]

59. But this isn't their reps, Mondo...

this is their staff members.

[mondo joe]

61. The issue at hand is the choice of the reps and their hypocrisy.

Duh.

[cynatnite]

65. If the reps are writing anti-gay legislation and spewing rhetoric...

I can support outing them if they are gay.

This is the outing of people who work for them. If they are gay and get outed all that will happen is they'll either stay at their jobs or get fired. If they're fired, new ones...who may or may not be gay...will be hired and the anti-gay legislation and rhetoric will continue.

All that will have been accomplished is hurting people.

[mondo joe]

69. The press is not a tool to push one agenda, or safeguard people

from hurt. The press is a tool to inform the electorate.

[cynatnite]

72. Are you talking about the corporate press?

The ones who fell on their faces leading up to the war in Iraq? The ones who did next to nothing on the Downing Street Memo? The same ones who continue to get the facts wrong time and time again?

The press is the tool of the corporate world who is supporting the repukes.

Mondo, you're going to mighty disappointed.

[mondo joe]

79. So according to you since the press has been used ill, it has

no legitimate purpose or freedom?

Interesting.

[cynatnite]

85. For the most part I find the press mistrustful...

For the most part they have abused the public's trust in the past. While there are a few...very few...worthwhile ones, they don't get the play that CNN, MSNBC, NYT or WaPo gets.

Read 'Watchdogs of Democracy'. It was written by Helen Thomas. Real page turner.

[WinkyDink]

184. Yeah, just like the ones who banged on the courthouse doors in FLA

in November, 2000.
I'd like to put a world of hurt on ALL their lives; they're REPUBLICAN.

[RB TexLa]

80. No, you do not have such a right

saying that you have a right to know about people private lives and personal sex lives does not make it true. People vote for a person they think will vote how they would like them to vote, if those votes and the person's private life leads to hypocrisy it doesn't change people either getting what they voted for. If people who voted for a closeted gay republican got the voting they wanted, why would they care if it was a hypocritical vote?

Elected official, their staff, who else's private sex lives do you feel you have this right to know and just when are you going to start demanding people adhere to your right and start answering to you about their private sex lives?

[mondo joe]

82. Actually, by way of freedom of the press we do have exactly

that right.

Being gay isn't simply someone's "sex life", incidentally.

[rinsd]

26. Playing up to people's bigotry?

I'll tell you that didn't work out so well last time when Kerry & Edwards tried it during the debates. My mother, who is a tried and true Democrat who has spent her life fighing for women, thought that was disgusting. Didn't change her vote but she was very disappointed that Mary Cheney was used so cynically.

Of course the GOP are a bunch of hypocrites, but I though we aspire to be better even we aren't.

[mondo joe]

44. You assume it will play to bigotry.

A lot of things can - and do - play to bigotry. Yet they are part of the issues publically discussed in a campaign.

[rinsd]

124. "you assume it will play to bigotry"

Ummmm you may be unaware of this but a great deal of the American public has problems with gay people.

"A lot of things can - and do - play to bigotry. Yet they are part of the issues publically discussed in a campaign."

Yes like McCain's black love child, that was all about marital fidelity and taking care of one's children :sarcasm:

I believe you are being deliberately obtuse here.

[beyurslf]

121. I won't play by an unwritten rule of being nice. They don't play nice so

why should we? I think if we are going to start winning, we need to play the same game.

[onenote]

12. here's my question: what evidence does rogers have/cite?

I'm not at all comfortable with outing people. Where do you draw the line? Members? Staffers? Secretaries and interns? Brothers and sisters of members and staffers?

Also,apart from Rogers assertion, what evidence is there to support the outing? Pretty dangerous to just let people make claims about others' private lives without any support.

[Garbo 2004]

34. Rogers usually is careful about his info. A lot of these folks aren't

really closeted, it's just not widely publicly known that they're gay. One guy he "outed" years ago, an RNC official, was advertising for sex on a gay site. With pics, etc. Not difficult to identify.

[onenote]

37. So we're just supposed to take it on faith that he's right?

That's asking a lot, imo.

[cynatnite]

67. How careful is he?

How do we know his info is correct? Where did he get it from? Are they credible?

[Garbo 2004]

153. ? Am I Rogers that I have access to his sources? But two words re: Rogers

track record: Ed Schrock, former Repub Congressman from VA who shockingly abruptly dropped out of his 2004 re-election campagn after Rogers outed him and posted an audio tape of Strock soliciting gay sex. Schrock publicly virulently anti-gay except, apparently, when he was trolling for men for sex.

Not to worry, however, Schrock quickly found new employment as staff for another Repub Congressman. Don't know if he's still married. Ed's apparently receiving a bit more attention from Rogers in his most recent post.

[onenote]

116. these folks are widely publicly known period

So if you're saying that they aren't really closeted gays, but just very private people who don't hide their sexual orientation from the public any more than they hide every other facet of their lives from the public, then what justification is there for acting as if they are public figures?

[cboy4]

13. "Out" them if there's proof they're gay. I have no sympathy for people

who work with Repuke politicians who are anti-gay and vote against gay issues.

It's the height of hypocrisy...

I am opposed in general to "out" gay people, but these people who align themselves with homophobes need to be taught a lesson.

[cynatnite]

16. 'taught a lesson'?

by outing them? Is that the good you see coming from this? to teach them a lesson?

How can we know there is proof? Did someone whisper in someone's ear? Were they followed so proof could be gathered?

[cboy4]

35. I thought I made it very clear in my post. If you work for a

a politician who votes to:

keep gays out of the military...

keep gays from marrying...

keeps gays from being boy scout leaders...

keep "sexual orientation" out of anti-discrimination laws (meaning you can be fired for your job or kicked out of your apartment at the discretion of your company or landlord)

and other hate policies, then yes, if there's proof, I'm in favor of "outing." IF THERE'S PROOF.

I am absolutely opposed to "outing" private citizens who are NOT involved in anti-gay efforts.

[cynatnite]

39. 'IF' being the big question...

how do we know they have proof? What sort of proof is it? How did they get it?

I am absolutely opposed to digging into the personal lives of anyone for the purposes of revenge. J. Edgar Hoover turned me off of it.

My point being...no good will come of this. No repuke will change his anti-gay rhetoric or law-making because his staff gets outed.

[cboy4]

64. Of course no Repuke will change their anti-gay rhetoric if his/her

staff member gets outed. That's not the point.

However, the "outing" will send a strong message to traitorous gays that crime (so to speak) does not pay working for homophobic Republicans as staff members.

For instance, a gay press aide who types out and distributes a news release about anti-gay legislation the law maker he or she works for, is traitorous.

It's an outrage.......and it's my position this gay press aide should be outed, or at the very least, examined by a psychiatrist.

[cynatnite]

83. Traitorous gays? Are you fucking kidding me?

Do you have any idea what that reads like? Send a message...make them pay for working for the wrong people. You're looking to hurt them...that's all. Nothing good comes out of that except to satisfy some need for revenge on your part. I have to tell you that is disgusting.

You are dreaming if you think anti-gay ways of repukes will change. Their largest voting block are RW anti-gay christians. They'll continue on if it keeps them in office.

[cboy4]

97. What's disgusting is you believe that it's okay for a gay person to

work for lawmakers who hate gays and don't want them to be in the military, or marry, or be boy scout leaders.

You think it's swell for a gay staffer to work for a lawmaker who believes employers have the right to fire workers if they're gay.

You think it's fine for a gay staffer to work for a lawmaker who believes landlords should be able to refuse renting an apartment to a gay couple because they're gay.

And what's all this shit about me "dreaming if you think anti-gay ways of Repukes will change."

WTF does that have to do with anything? I never said I thought the anti-gay ways of Repukes will change.

My point is gay people have no business working for anti-gay bigots. Period.

Stop trying to twist my words.

[cynatnite]

126. Gay people can work for whoever the hell they want...

It's not up to you, me or anyone else except them. Their choice. We may not like who they work for even why they work for them...it's THEIR CHOICE.

Geez, you are as judgmental as the repukes are. :eyes:

[mondo joe]

139. We don't have the authority to deny them employment.

But if that's the outcome of telling the truth about them, so be it.

[Zan_of_Texas]

136. Actually, the largest R voting block is probably electrons gone astray.

Given the severe security vulnerabilities of electronic voting (DREs) and electronic tabulating (which includes optical scanning), of the vast majority of our votes in the U.S., no one can prove what block of voters voted for whom. For all we know, George W. Bush came in third in the last election.

[INDIA]

96. The politician you just described

is represented by about 90% of both congress and the Senate, both Dem and Rupub.

What exactly have Democrats done for gays lately that makes them so much better than Repubs. As I see it, Repubs are hateful and bigoted, Dems are too cowardly to stand up for the gay community. Both are disgusting.

[onenote]

28. what constitutes proof?

In the case of the staffers outed by Rogers, did he offer "proof"?

[cboy4]

48. Why did Rogers need to offer initial proof? In my opinion, it's only

important that he's able to exhibit/present proof at the appropriate time.

There's no need to do so initially.

As for what constitutes proof, there are a number of ways to establish it........photographs, e-mails, interviews with same-sex boyfriends (current or past), blah blah

[onenote]

68. gee, I don't know, maybe because proof matters?

If (or I should say when) repugs throw out unsubstantiated charges about Democrats, we legitiately scream for proof. I'm not into red-baiting.

[mondo joe]

74. What standard of proof is typically called for in a news story?

Isn't the publisher liable for libel?

[cboy4]

90. I disagree that going into detail (proof) was necessary in the initial

e-mail.

That can all be explained in a follow-up e-mail or phone call or meeting, right?

When you call 9-1-1 and tell the dispatcher you caught your neighbor breaking into your house and stealing your computer......you don't hear the dispatcher say, "Sir, before we send the cops, we need to know what evidence do you have that it was your neighbor and not just your sister who's borrowing it?"

The cops are come.

The important issue of evidence is dealt with next.

[cynatnite]

94. I can't believe you actually compared an email to 911...

that's just hilarious. :rofl: Best laugh I've had all day.

[cboy4]

103. I think I'm finished with you. If you can't compute my point that

outing gay staff members of bigoted congresspeople is fine with me (as long as there's proof the staffers are gay) -- don't know what else you want from me.

[mondo joe]

104. It's funny to see the weird double standards people apply to this.

Like the demands for proof. I don't remember anyone demanding proof about any other initial reports unfavorable to the GOP. I don't know why someone beinggay is the special exception.

[cboy4]

105. I know. It's just so difficult to put into words how little sympathy

I have for those who are oppressed working as slaves for those who so blatantly oppress them!

They make me sick.

[cynatnite]

125. Now they're slaves? You called them traitorous before.

:crazy:

[cboy4]

133. With all due respect, you're coming across as a person who has some

sort of learning disability. (nothing but sarcastic comments and smileys)

Intellectually, you appear helpless and that makes me uncomfortable and sad.

You've not once specifically addressed my point(s).

So, if you have special needs, or something like that, could you let me know whether I need to rephrase what I've been saying so you better understand?

Hopefully this post doesn't come across in an embarrassing manner for you!

If it does, I apologize.

[cynatnite]

134. Well, when someone resorts to personal attacks...

that tells me they have nothing else of value to say. Buh-bye.

[cboy4]

135. LOL. This coming from a person who earlier compared me to a

"Repuke."

If you're more interested in making smart-ass remarks and puting down a bunch of :eyes:'s, :puke:'s and :crazy:'s, instead of breaking down an argument and discussing it in a respectful and intelligent fashion -- perhaps you shouldn't waste your time responding to my posts.

After all, you're the person who initiated contact. Not me.

[rinsd]

170. Ahhh the Republican standard of proof....

...now I get it.

[cboy4]

31. self delete

responded to myself!

D'OH!!!

[sui generis]

20. well "outing" them shouldn't be the issue

it's what happens to them next that bears watching . . .

As much as I ethically don't like the idea, the machiavellian side of me says turn those rabbits loose and see if the dogs will chase . . .

The "velvet mafia" is covering up? Did you accidentally ingest a right wing talking point? Quick, someone give the OP the heimlich. . . no reacharounds!

[IronLionZion]

29. If we could "out" anti-semitic Jews and misogynistic women we would

But for most of those people, their culture, ethnicity, or gender is obvious. That's not the case for anti-gay gays. We are outing the hypocrisy, not the homosexuality.

The only thing is that I hope Michael Rogers and his supporters only out gays who really are gay and really out to oppress their own people.

I'm IronLionZion of DU and proudly support the practice of outing. I'm Indian Catholic. Please DU, if you ever catch me supporting legislation to suppress the rights of Indians or Catholics feel free to out me any time. Don't forget to out Congressman Bobby Jindal at that point too.


on edit: added "really out to oppress their own people"

[cynatnite]

33. by outing the hypocrisy, the homosexuality is outed as well...

Michael Rogers should be made to answer what proof he had and how he got it.

[pinto]

30. Personally, I think this may be somewhat misguided. My points:

If there's an issue with the staffers' pay scales, document it. Are they out of line with other comparable Federal positions? Are they unqualified in their positions, or was the hiring process flawed? That's well worth a look. Civil Service regs are pretty clear on the topics. A Civil Service complaint about inequitable pay scales for grade, lack of qualification or inappropriate hiring practices almost always gets a response.

If there's an issue with staffers' actions in their positions that point to a cover-up of Mr. Hastert's actions and/or inaction in his office, forward that info to the ethics committee and let them follow up. In the current climate, they'd be fools to overlook a good lead. Or two.

If there's an issue solely with the staffers' sexuality and their positions, blogactive may be somewhat off base in what they hope to achieve. Any Federal oversight committee, including House ethics, are prohibited by law to act solely on an employee's sexuality in making any recommendations or taking any action. It's called discrimination.

If there's an issue with the staffers' sexuality and their part in the politics of the Republican party, which is the pertinent issue, there may be a more effective political way to address it than this.

I wish blogactive would take a second look at their methods.

I know there are good points made all around this issue, this is my personal take.

(aside) I believe Hastert won't last out the month in his position, and rightly so.

Thanks.

[DURHAM D]

32. He is right to do this.

If a closeted jewish person who hated being a jew and thus hated all other jews was secretly helping the Nazis round up all jews in order to send them off to the camps for extermination would you think the remaining jews (who knew about the traitor) would be correct to take down the self-hating jew by telling his Gestapo masters? or Take matters into their own hands?

Too many here think they should just keep quiet and suffer.

To be honest, this is a matter about which I am not terribly interested in the views of straight people, one way or the other.

[cynatnite]

36. There were plenty of Jews who did just that...

Are you suggesting that the outing of staff members of repukes is doing them a favor? This strikes me as rather Orwellian. It's for your own good...that's why we do this. You'll thank us in the long run. :eyes:

[Stand and Fight]

109. I must disagree....

He is not right to do this based on the analogy that you are drawing. Why? Quite simple. No gay has ever died as a direct result of the actions of one of these congressional staffers. They have a right to privacy. If they choose to keep their sexual orientation private and work for the devil at the same time, that is their business. It is heinous that someone would "out" them. It directly contradicts the tenants of privacy that so many hold dear in this country. A better analogy would be a Jew who is telling the Nazis who is/is not a Jew before the concentration camps and the subsequent "final solution" began. In my most humble opinion.

[mondo joe]

122. What makes you think people in politics have a right to keep

out of the press things they'd rather others not know?

[joe_sixpack]

189. Did you actually read back your statement?

Do you really believe the public has a right to know everything about a public official? Did the public really need to know that JFK might have had Addison's disease? Did we need to know that FDR had to be in a wheel chair constantly? The press kept a lid on Kennedy's alleged affairs and it didn't hurt the Country one bit. They were still effective leaders. And when you talk of people in politics, how far down the totem poll do you go? My boss has some pretty right wing views. My boss may even support organizations that I do not agree with. I am not a hypocrite if I get my paycheck signed by him.

[Le Taz Hot]

53. Uncool!

These actions are not worthy of so-called liberals (actually, pseudo liberals). The right to privacy is a very real Constitutional right and should apply to all -- including people we don't don't like or people connected to people we don't like.

[mondo joe]

62. Which right to privacy from the press do you find in the

Constitution?

Do you believe everyone has the right to not have anything reported that they'd rather keep rivate?

[Le Taz Hot]

77. It's implied

See Roe v. Wade and hudreds of other ruling based upon the non-specifically-stated right to privacy. And to answer your question, yes, I do. For reference, see T. Jefferson.

That is all.

[mondo joe]

81. Privcy from the PRESS is implied?

Where the heck did you get that?

Roe v Wade is about freedom from government intrusion. Not the press.

And I think you need to re-read your Thomas Jefferson.

[Le Taz Hot]

93. The Right to privacy

period. It includes the press. And I did re-read Mr. Jefferson. This last summer as a matter of fact. Greatly rejuvinating it was. Now, kindly take your tiresome little pissing contest somewhere else. I'm bored.

[mondo joe]

95. Sorry, but you seem quite confused about this.

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

"I am... for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

The Constitution does not imply any right to privacy FROM the press.

[onenote]

98. are you a lawyer? familiar with "invasion of privacy" claims?

There is indeed a "right to privacy" that applies in favor of an individual against the press. Its what underlies causes of action for invasion of privacy, as first articulated by no less than Justice Brandeis.

One can argue whether it is "newsworthy" that the staffer of a member of congress is gay. Personally, I don't think it is. Staffers aren't public persona and I haven't seen Hastert advocating that gay people shouldn't be allowed to have jobs.

[mondo joe]

101. Don't confuse an article in Harvard Law Review with the Law.

Even Warren and Brande, in The Right to Privacy, recognized that such a right "does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest."

If anyone thinks their rights have been violated by being outed, they have the right to sue. But I don't think you'll see that happening soon.

[onenote]

106. not just a law review article -- commonly accepted law

The Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 652D (1977) provides that:

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.

The Restatement also indicates that matters involving sexual relations and/or "home life" are areas that give rise to potential liability. Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 652D, comments (b), (g) (1977).


We can disagree as to whether the sexual orientation of a congressional staffer who is unknown to the public and whose influence over his/her bosses positions on issues of public concern are unclear (do you know what the Director of Speaker Operations does? I don't), but the fact that there is a right of privacy vis-a-vis the press even for truthful information -- something that you seemed to be disputing earlier in this thread -- is not in doubt.

To clarify: I'm not suggesting that the right of privacy vis-a-vis is a Constitutional right. THe Constitutional right of privacy ensures a person's right to be left alone "as against the Government." But the right of privacy recognized in the common law is still a well-settled legal right.

[mondo joe]

107. "not of legitimate concern to the public"

I don't think anyone would get far on that point.

[onenote]

110. I disagree. Not in the context in which the outing occurred.

Rogers letter claims that these two men should be investigated because they have a vested interest in protecting Mark Foley so that the repubs stay in power.

They have exactly that same interest whether they are gay or straight. If Foley's behavior becomes public, it harms the republicans chances of holding the house, which threatens their jobs.

In the context of ROgers' outing, there is no legitimate relationship between the fact that they are gay and the claim that they had an interest in protecting the repub's majority in the house.

[mondo joe]

111. Actually, not exactly the same.

It's already been touted that a network of gay republicans were charged with keeping Foley in line. So these people are of particular interest in that investigation.

Furthermore, while they have the same general interest in preserving the majority, they have a particular interest in their own careers.

But the public interest is NOT limited to the intent of the source. There are other reasons that make this newsworthy.

[onenote]

112. they have no greater interest in their careers than any othe staffer

Suggesting otherwise is absurd. And Rogers doesn't say anything in his letter about a network of gay republicans -- he says these are well-paid staffers with an interest in protecting Foley in order to protect the repub majority. Well, the same can be said about straight repubs.

[mondo joe]

115. Sure they do. Even if they lose the majority, not all Republicans

or their staffers are out of a job. But if it is widely known among the base that there are a lot of gays among the patry elite, they may be purged. So they have a very particular interest.

And Rogers' letter doesn't have to say anything about the network - that's already in the news.

But all of this is beside the point of whether this is in the public interest or not - that's a question that rests on a lot more than the informant's reasons.

[AngryAmish]

100. Nope.

Your interpretation of Constitutional law is unique.

That said, there are private torts of improper publication of personal matters. It is not a Constitutional matter.

[pampango]

117. Unfortunately, it appears that liberals can nitpick the right to privacy

to fit their political needs as well as some GOPers.

This right is important when we can beat the GOP over the head with it, but not so important when it suits or electoral strategy.

[mondo joe]

120. Nothing nitpicky about being clear about rights.

And I personally think the free press is crucial.

[pampango]

146. Free press - crucial. Agreed. Right to privacy - well, it depends :think

on the politics of the situation? If the right to privacy is important when it is consistent with our political wishes, it is still important even when it impedes us achieving our political goals. It is like the right to free speech. It does not just apply when speakers agree with us.

[mondo joe]

149. Both are crucial, and that's why it's worth being clear: there is a right

to privacy FROM GOVERNMENT INTRUSION.

There is not a right to privacy from the press (as any number of celebrities will confirm).

[ComerPerro]

138. fuck em, out all Gay Republicans. Every single one of them

after all, according to them (and their voting record), being gay is not only a choice, but is an immoral and shameful one.

I mean, come on. We don't let gay's marry because we don't want to reward immoral behavior, right?

So, therefore, gay Republicans are terrible people, by their own definitions.

[stillcool]

88. Sexual Orientation would not matter...

if they were not working to achieve the homo-phobic policies of their chosen affiliation with the republican political party.

[Lindacooks]

91. GAY MEN ARE NOT PEDOPHILES!!!!

Sheesh, I'm just sickened by how often I'm hearing the two connected.

Pedophiles are sick individuals.

Gay people are normal.

What is so hard to understand about that?

[KurtNYC]

102. I think this is about outing closeted gay men who are

working actively inside of a political party that regularly exploits homophobia (including the myth you cite) for fund raising and voter turnout (eg "Defense of Marriage Act"). They may become casualties of their own actions and hypocrisy but that is up to their employers (the GOP) at this point.

There is an ancient saying: "The oppressed oppress." Which in this case would mean that self-hating or simply secretive gays have been used to oppress gay people who are out. If this outing stops a few of them then it is a good thing IMHO.

[tomreedtoon]

118. I wonder if "outing" is self-destructive.

You have Gay Man #1 outing Gay Man #2, saying he shouldn't be in power...because he's gay!

And yes, Gay Man #1 can say, "I did it because he's a hypocrite about being gay," but he knows that a lot of people are going to send Gay Man #2 to the guillotine, not because he's a hypocrite, but because he's gay.

I'm not gay, in fact I'm so hideous I have trouble convincing my hand to...well, that's enough said about that. But if I were a member of a such an oppressed minority - not too dissimilar from a Jew calling another person a Jew in Nazi Germany - it wouldn't be an empowering act. It's be like saying, "You're dying with me, buddy!" and holding on to him tight as they drag us both to Buchenwald.

I suppose it's better than letting a hypocritical gay man in power oppress other gay men, but it's still a very ugly and despicable solution.

[Lindacooks]

128. No - read the letter again.

"Surely Mr. Lancaster has a vested interested in protecting MEN LIKE MARK FOLEY so the majority party may maintain power."

"...he has a vested in (sic) interest in protecting closeted men like Mark Foley so the majority can stay in power."

It may be a bit more subtle, but the meaning is perfectly clear. Repukes are trying to paint gay men as pedophiles.

[JudyM]

180. The neocons would have us believe they are. Yet their actions are soft

when faced with the opportunity to stop an actual pedophile, while they contuously drum up fear and loathing about plain old upstanding gay citizens. This is the main point that the media should be covering, IMHO.

[onenote]

108. Rogers justification for outing these staffers doesn't withstand scrutiny

Rogers letter suggests that these two gay men should be investigated to see what role they played in the Foley scandal/cover up because they "have a vested interest in protecting a man like Mark Foley so that the majority party can stay in power".

Well, those two repub staffers would have the same "vested interest" in protecting Mark Foley so that the repubs would stay in power whether or not they were straight, closeted gays, open gays, bi-sexual or eunuchs.

Gratuitous, imo.

[Hepburn]

119. I don't like the idea of outing gays...

... just because they are gay. That is just wrong and smacks of what the Repuke hypocrites have done for years.

What SHOULD be outed are people who covered for a sexual predator like Foley. The sexual preference of these people is irrelevant.

I kind of agree, however, if someone has been bashing gays for years and it is solid fact that the person is gay, then maybe he/she should be called on this kind of dishonesty not because he/she is gay, but solely because of being dishonest. There is NO need for sexual preferences to be a political football like some have made the issue of gay marriage. That makes me sick ~~ that is an individual choice. But being a member of a certain group which, IMO, has been discriminated against in many areas for far too long and supporting further discrimination? Well, that is just plain dishonest and hypocritical. THAT is OK by me to let someone have it for being a hypocrite if he/she is doing that.

I hope that makes some sense...and no matter what: It does bother me that anyone is being outed about any personal life choices that do not have an effect on anyone else.

Edit for typo.

[pkz]

123. I agree

I don't want them in my bedroom and I don't care what they do in theirs, as long as no one gets hurt.

Sexual preference is irrelevant, that is what makes me a liberal.

I strongly do not believe that "outing" serves any purpose, other than plain ole meanness.
Now, hypocrisy is a moral issue not a social one, so if the repugs hold the strong anti-gay stance and are gay themselves, they need to re-think.
They are pitiful.

[and-justice-for-all]

127. I think it is GREAT that there are Gay political figuers...

...Its only sad that they have to remain in the closet and that being Gay is still, in the 21st century, seen as a taboo. Why is it still an issue to be Gay and a Politcal figure? Im so sick of these Holier then Thou asshats playing their so-called Moral card when all they are are Hypocrites!

I do not think Rogers is doing this to be an asshole, I see it as that he is exposing the hypocricy of the Repuke/RW 'party'.

Being Gay has nothing to do with pedophillia/child predators. It one thing to be Gay, but its a completly different issue to be a pedophile/child predator.

Really need to stop with the inaccurate comparisons of the two...I find it very offensive, being Gay I can not see any similarities.

Same goes for being and Atheist, I am no longer going to be silent about being and Atheist or Gay...Enough is enough! Fuck the 'Religious Right'!


'Religion is Bunk.' Thomas A. Edison

[Raksha]

186. What I can definitely see happening is that when all the smoke clears

the fallout from the Foley scandal will END the persecution of gays as a political tactic, i.e. a cheap and easy way of getting bigot votes. The long-term dangers of a homophobic agenda will be understood even by the Right (as it already is by the Left) to outweigh any short-term advantage.

Compare it with "miscegenation," a VERY BIG issue with right-wing bigots until not very long ago. And yet Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman, isn't he? I'm sure there are plenty of racists whose heads explode every time they think about it, but THEY KEEP THEIR BIG MOUTHS SHUT about it in public, especially in campaign speech. They can't use it as a wedge issue any more because sure as hell someone will bring up their pet Supreme Court justice if they do.

When the smoke finally clears, I predict the same thing happening with homophobia as a campaign issue. Not only will the risks outweigh any possible short-term advantage, but EVERYONE including the most rabid right-wing bigots will know what happens when it backfires.

[pampango]

187. Well formulated theory.

My fear has been that we would look like the hypocrites for being the gay outers that we had always denounced and open outing back up as a tactic for the fundamentalists to use, but I like your take on how this could all work out.

[Truthiness Inspector]

137. K & R Very Interesting!!! n/t

[Marie26]

142. I'm not sure this is relevant

If people covered up, that's what matters. Their sexual orientation shouldn't matter. This just seems like outing people because they are gay & Republican.

[autorank]

143. Question: How bad would things be if these gay Republicans were

not in place? What if they had some real deal, unrepentant fascists in place?

Of course, any one covering up this type of crime needs to be nailed but where's the proof
that these guys were involved in a cover up, other than Rogers' assertions?

This is all part of the general "teardown" of the Republicans so I supposed it's another
rocking day in DC. They didn't get the memo: stop being such lunatics. Now they're getting
the front page treatment. I'm sure this will bubble up and hit the back pages. It's certain
that it will happen if there is some tangible proof that these two did, indeed, cover up for
the disgraced Foley.

All right, all hypocrites on the Hill, repeat after me: "Screaming Bummer"

Can you imagine how they're feeling? What the ..ck is going on? We run things, don't we? :rofl:

[Erika]

144. Please pass this on to

Jerry Falwell at www.falwell.com
AFA at www.afa.net
James Dobson at www.family.org
Tony Perkins at www.frc.org

These groups used hatred of the gay agenda to turn out to vote for the GOP.

[readmoreoften]

145. Why are "gay hypocrites" worse than straight bigots?

Should we out Republicans whose wives use dildos? Why all this focus on "gay people" and hypocrisy? Why are hypocrites worse than people who really believe that gays are inferior? Why gives the straight monsters a pass?

Let's face it: everyone wants gay Republicans to be outed because they know their homophobic voter base will foam at the mouth and fire them. Meanwhile, the vicious straight motherfuckers who really believe this shit will continue to dominate the Republican party. The luckiest you're going to get is that enough seats are lost due to VICIOUS HOMOPHOBES FIRING (albeit IDIOTIC) CLOSETED GAYS. So we're going to win congress on a GAY PURGE! Lovely.

And then the next time around, the VICIOUS HOMOPHOBES (whose flames we are feeding) will squash us again and we'll be right back where we started.


The problem isn't "HYPOCRISY" the problem is HOMOPHOBIA and the fact that neocons are vicious sociopaths-- period.

Do I want the hypocrites to go down, sure. But what I really want is the viciousness of the whole republican party to be quelled. I don't see that coming anytime soon: not with a democratic win, not for anything.

[and-justice-for-all]

147. Because they all have one thing in common....

....GREEDY!

[mondo joe]

150. They're not worse, but they are a political weakness to be exploited.

We are in a conflict, after all.

[grizmaster]

155. "The List" includes 4 reps, 1 Sen, 16 GOP staff (2 bush staff included)

Found copies of the list on several sites. Lancaster hadn't even made the list until the Rogers' memo.

From what I understand the list only contains those who have actively worked on anti-gay agendas.

Still, even though they're hypocrites I'm not sure of the value in focusing on this.

I did find it amusing to find Drudge on the list, especially since it was on his site I found one of the copies (freeper site was another spot that published it among others).

I'm not going to post the list but it's in the comments on the link.

http://www.drudge.com/news/86189/right-wingers-scapegoat-gay-gop-aides

[mondo joe]

156. I'd suggest the value is in fracturing the GOP.

Exploit the divide between the evangeliical base and the GOP elite.

[grizmaster]

158. I'm not so sure if that would be the outcome

And if it motivates the religious fanatic base, we might end up hurting the dems chances in the election.

It's definitely skirting a fine philisophical line here. Does the end justify the means? Or is that a poor way to look at it when these people have chosen a public life and are actively hurting those who share their life-style?

My internal jury is still out on this one. I was curious enough to hunt down the list, but I'm not so certain on what should be done with it.

[mondo joe]

159. No one KNOWS the outcome of any strategy.

And I have zero problem with it. :-)

[grizmaster]

161. It's not that I'm unwilling to take chances

More often than not I'm the one accused of being reckless.

But this one makes my moral compass a little queasy, and I don't have Rove's ability to suspend my core beliefs just to suit a political end. Not that I'm above a little political dirty tricks, but as the Foley case has demonstrated making choices 'soley' out of political hunger doesn't always work out.

[mondo joe]

164. I think there is a liberal kneejerk response to outing.

But as a gay man, I think that's a double standard, however well intended it may be.

The relationships of heteros are commonly reported without hesitation. Being gay isn't dirty - it doesn't merit a special complicity in secret keeping.

[grizmaster]

167. interesting point

I used to work with a bunch of folks who were in on the beginnings of Act Up and your contention was brought up often.

My instinct is that secrecy almost always ends up getting used against you in the end, so any short term value of "protecting" the mask is definitely questionable.

[Wally101]

171. I'm glad that you don't have a problem with it....

But I'm assuming that you are out to everyone you know and your family and they are accepting and those that aren't you simply don't deal with. That's wonderful in your situtation, but that's YOUR situation.

I don't like the idea of a gay person working for someone who actively attempts to introduce anti-gay legislation, but that is their choice.

By the way, we have no "right" to know everything about everyone. There is freedom of speech, which is the basis for our press and what they report, but we as citizens have no "right" to any knowledge about any private citizen. Please get the facts straight. (pun intended).

Mark

[mondo joe]

173. If they'd like to keep secrets, they ought not to get into politics.

That's a simple fact.

We don't have the right to know everything - but the press has the right to release any information that IS known.

[Wally101]

188. How far down the line does that go though?

The staffer who has direct contact? The secretary that staffer hires? The temp that secretary hires? They're all in politics (i.e. working for the politician).

Mark

[pampango]

163. And I imagine that many in that evangelical base will be happy,

in the long run, that gay outing has become acceptable again. Even though many will be alienated with the GOP for now, I don't see them staying away in the long run and we have put an arrow back in their quiver.

In the future our defense against RW outing of gays will be weaker. We won't be able to say that outing gays is a slimy, despicable tactic that should never be employed. We will only be able to say that it shouldn't be done to our guys, because they are not hypocrites (at least, not as far as support for the gay rights is concerned. They may be hypocrites in other ways, of course.)

[mondo joe]

165. But I don't care who in the public eye is outted at all.

I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging gay relationships just as hetero relationships are.

[pampango]

169. I understand what you are saying, but I have gone through many decades

of believing and professing the outing of gays was a vile fundamentalist tactic that was not acceptable.

If we were talking about outing gays at random, for their own long term good, that would be one thing. If we are talking about outing for political and electoral purposes, then it is not as altruistic or focused on the long term welfare of the individual.

[mondo joe]

172. Ah, but this IS politics.

Outing someone "for their own good" is a personal matter.

This is a political matter, so of course it's for political purposes. Same way outing Bill Bennett's gambling was political. Same way almost everything revealed about anyone in politics is political.

[pampango]

174. I agree that outing people for their behavior, like gambling, is justified

for political reasons. Behavior, e.g. gambling, domestic violence, drug abuse, pedophilia, etc., is something that a person should have control over and is, therefore, something that gives an insight into their suitability for public office and should be revealed.

When it comes to traits over which you have no control because you are born with them, like sexual orientation, perhaps a genetic predisposition to cancer or Alzheimer's, etc., I have a harder time justifying the public's right to know.

I realize that we are never going back to the days when JFK could have affairs in the White House or FDR could be confined to a wheelchair and the press never told anyone, but I don't think that we are going to get the best people to run for public office if they know that they will have absolutely no right to any privacy in their lives.

[mondo joe]

175. But heterosexuality is innate too, and that's reported.

If a candidate has a same sex patrner it ought to be reported, same as if they have an opposite sex partner.

When Newt's divorces come up I never see anyone DU argue that we should respect his private life. Same for the CNN anchor dating Rush Limbaugh. We regularly hear about the private relationships of hetero public figures.

I don't have a double standard for gay public figures.

[pampango]

176. Fair enough. Too old to start outing gays. Leave that to the younger

folks. I'm not big on worrying about who's marrying whom, who's divorcing whom, or whose dating whom in the political world no matter what their sexual orientation. Best of luck putting the genie back in the bottle after the election. Sure hope you can do it.

[Blackhatjack]

162. Not Sure If This Has Been Discussed As A Justification For Outing....

ALL Americans have an interest in being fully and fairly represented by their Congressional representatives, and by extension the Staff they hire to help them do their jobs.

Can a Congressman meet that standard if there is something of which they are ashamed and wish to keep secret? Are they not swayed in their decisionmaking when there is a conflict between their two interests --one to vote their conscience, and two their interest in keeping certain information secret at all costs. What about the vulnerability to being exposed by others who may know the secret if he/she does not vote in conformity with the views of the others who know the secret?

Without passing a judgment on the sexual orientation of the individual, is it not a problem to be a Congressman with a secret which may affect the carrying out of their duties?

And in that case do we not have a situation in which the American people are deprived of the 'good services and best judgment' of that Congressman as long as the secret is not outed?

As Congressmen they ran a public campaign, became public figures, took on public trust to do their job. If they were just an average citizen, not placing themselves in the public spotlight, then in that event I do not see any justification for 'outing' an individual.

Here there may be very valid public policy considerations which may demand a level of honesty about personal characteristics which may cause bias of a public official --to the detriment of those represented.

[novalib]

168. EXCELLENT!!! OUT EVERY GODDAM ONE OF THEM!!!

EVERY SINGLE SELF-LOATHING gay person who works for the party that actively tries to deny BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS to gay people DESERVES TO BE OUTED!!!

They are NO DIFFERENT than the Jewish people who led other Jews to NAZI DEATH CAMPS!!

THEY ARE HYPOCRITES!!!!!!

OUT THEM ALL!!!

NOW!!!!!!

[Raksha]

181. KAPOS - that's a good name for these bastards!

Re >>They are NO DIFFERENT than the Jewish people who led other Jews to NAZI DEATH CAMPS!!<<

[Zhade]

177. I endorse the outing of hypocritical anti-gay gays, regardless of party.

NT!

[pampango]

185. Careful there. Your last three words could get you in trouble.

The word has been to go after hypocritical gay Republicans. We all assume there is no such thing, I think, as a hypocritical gay Democrat. All gay Democrats are open and supportive of the gay agenda.

[joe_sixpack]

190. But they must be outed too.

if I'm following the logic of most posts on this thread.

[Skelington]

179. While you are celebrating the "outing" of Republicans,

Get ready for the spin machine to throw this right back in the face of Dems, anybody answering this thread with an "out the bastards" attitude should stock up on chill pills, because it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that the Republicans are going to spin this and shove it right back up the Left Wing ass.

Just stop and think about it, in 3 weeks just before the election all that is going to be splattered all over the place is "Dems out gays", think about how easy it is to re-write this story to make Dems look like the bastards?

"Gays in public service need to be outed" THAT is about to be the tattoo that every Republican is going to give the Dems. Democrats have let go of the circular firing squad, in leu of pulling the pin on a hand granade and playing hot potato.

[mondo joe]

182. That's your prediction.

I have a different one.

[Imagevision]

183. Outing Gays is a distraction, outing cover-ups is a different gig