"The List" Outing Gay GOP Staffers?

[CSpindizzy]

From David Corn's website:

"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.
I have a copy. I'm not going to publish it. For one, I don't know for a fact that the men on the list are gay. And generally I don't fancy outing people--though I have not objected when others have outed gay Republicans, who, after all, work for a party that tries to limit the rights of gays and lesbians and that welcomes the support of those who demonize same-sexers.
What's interesting about The List--which includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications--is that (if it's acucurate) it shows that some of the religious right's favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas. These include Representative Katherine Harris and Henry Hyde and Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell and Rick Santorum. Should we salute these legislators for being open-minded enough to have such tolerant hiring practices? After all, Santorum in a 2003 AP interview compared homosexuality to bestiality, incest and polygamy. It would be rather big of Santorum to employ a fellow who engages in activity akin to such horrors. That is, if Santorum knows about his orientation.
Let's be clear about one thing: the Mark Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is. But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets--even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen? The men on The List might want to think hard about these questions--as they probably already have--for if I have a copy of The List, there's a good chance it will be appearing soon on a website near everyone."

[volinbham]

A few things I object to in that article:

The idea of outing - clearly it's a personal choice. I was listening to a liberal talk show on Friday (Foley day) and they were delighting in outing Republicans.

The idea that the republican party is anti-gay. Some in the party, some aren't. Likewise, some in the democratic party are anti-gay and some aren't.

Corn chastises outing in one breath then virtually outs by providing positions and congressional member affiliations. In fact it may be worse because now everyone will try to guess who is gay on the staffs of those mentioned.

[CSpindizzy]

I think it's hillarious that someone who is gay would work for someone who equated them with bestiality. The irony...

We'll see how the moral folk like having their poster boys being the employers for some of those they despise so much. It's sad that people's personal lives have come to this but when you make it a party platform to basically control and dictate private lives, things like this come to bite that party in the proverbial rear end.

[GAVol]

Remember back in the 90s when Ken Starr was a smut peddler for looking into stuff like this?

[volinbham]

There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around - I've heard the liberal side making this out to be a gay thing (as opposed to ped-thing). Hmmm, the moral high-grounders on personal choice are eating their own to gain political advantage.

[OWB]

Didn't George W. Bush himself have a gay encounter?

[GAVol]

Originally Posted by OWB

Didn't George W. Bush himself have a gay encounter?

It was just a dream OWB. Go back to sleep.

[CSpindizzy]

Originally Posted by volinbham

There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around - I've heard the liberal side making this out to be a gay thing (as opposed to ped-thing). Hmmm, the moral high-grounders on personal choice are eating their own to gain political advantage.

Why is it that the automatic response always has to be flipping the issue to "the other side" and how hypocritical the other side is? You act as if I am on 'the other side'. Any time something negative comes out against the GOP, the quick response is not to accept responsibility or just sit back and take it. It's always dealing with something a Democrat did...whether 30 years ago or last year. I think it's funny where every new event has to be turned into something about the other side. Hastert goes on Limbaugh to talk about the Foley issue and digresses into how the Democrats are going to raise taxes. Unless it's raising taxes on child predators and NAMBLA members I'm missing how the two are related.

[OWB]

Originally Posted by GAVol

It was just a dream OWB. Go back to sleep.

Funny

I'm serious, I see to remember reading something about a night at Yale (his old cheerleading stomping grounds) that involved whiskey, pot, cocaine and Bush kissing another man.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by CSpindizzy

Why is it that the automatic response always has to be flipping the issue to "the other side" and how hypocritical the other side is? You act as if I am on 'the other side'. Any time something negative comes out against the GOP, the quick response is not to accept responsibility or just sit back and take it. It's always dealing with something a Democrat did...whether 30 years ago or last year. I think it's funny where every new event has to be turned into something about the other side. Hastert goes on Limbaugh to talk about the Foley issue and digresses into how the Democrats are going to raise taxes. Unless it's raising taxes on child predators and NAMBLA members I'm missing how the two are related.

It's pretty simple really - and you do it quite frequently as well.

To throw out a statement about how ironic it is for one-side to do something simply sets up a situation for presenting evidence that the hypocrisy or irony is not that unusal or that big a deal.

To use another of your approaches - read the first sentence - plenty to go around -- both sides, blah blah blah.

[CSpindizzy]

Originally Posted by volinbham

It's pretty simple really - and you do it quite frequently as well.

To throw out a statement about how ironic it is for one-side to do something simply sets up a situation for presenting evidence that the hypocrisy or irony is not that unusal or that big a deal.

To use another of your approaches - read the first sentence - plenty to go around -- both sides, blah blah blah.

I don't make the initial response to an issue with "the other side does it too" on my posts. I will be the first to say both sides have their share of hypocrites. That is part of my own frustration with my own side of the spectrum, the same one you are on. I think it's cheap and poor character to automatically respond to every issue with how the other side does it as well. Yes, it is not unusual especially coming from elementary school kids. Politics has stooped to that level where instead of accepting responsibility and just admitting one's side screwed up, they'd rather turn this into some childish game of how much worse the other side is.

The fact remains that a child predator had his day with those placed in the care of the Speaker of the House. His response is to go on talk radio and divert an abuse of trust and power issue and one of very questionable morals and turn it to the Democrats are going to raise taxes. WTF?

[GAVol]

Originally Posted by CSpindizzy

I think it's cheap and poor character to automatically respond to every issue with how the other side does it as well.

No it's not when the people hurling the charges are being obviously hypocritical.

[volinbham]

Cheap and poor character?

Whatever dude - perhaps you might want to take an introspective look at your debating tactics...

[CSpindizzy]

So you don't think it's childish to respond to children being sexually abused to Democrats raising taxes? That's smart debate tactics to you?

[CSpindizzy]

My bad...accepting responsibilty is overrated.