Gay Dems Tell Their “Gannon” To Quit
I just saw this story and since we brought you our varying takes (mine here and Dan’s here) on TX House Candidate Tom Malin (aka – The Democrat’s Jeff Gannon) earlier this week, I figured this development was at least worth mentioning.
Malin admits ‘lurid past’ - DallasVoice
The board of Stonewall Democrats of Dallas on Friday rescinded the organization’s endorsement of Tom Malin, Democratic candidate for the District 108 seat in the Texas House of Representatives, after Malin acknowledged Thursday that he once worked as a male escort.
Malin said Thursday he is not withdrawing from the race against Jack Borden in the Democratic primary on March 7.
But [Michael] Moon [Stonewall's President] said Friday he believes Malin has hurt Stonewall Democrats and the Dallas County Democratic Party by lying about his history.
“This is not about him being in recovery. It’s not even about him being an escort in the past. This is about the fact that he lied to us,” Moon said. “We asked him before we endorsed him if the rumors were true, and he said they were not.”
Moon added, “I hate to say this, but I think if he really cares about the Democratic Party, he will withdraw from the race.”
What’s your take on this, gang? Are the Stonewalls right in pulling the rug out from their guy who is apparently openly gay based on this article? Are they really upset because of his statements about religion? Did he find religion just last week or before the Stonewall Dems endorsed him?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
28 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
As for your questions, who knows other than the parties directly involved?
Comment by Synova — February 22, 2006 @ 7:33 pm - February 22, 2006
In the article they don’t mention being upset about his religion. I think this sums their position up.
-
“This is not about him being in recovery. It’s not even about him being an escort in the past. This is about the fact that he lied to us,” Moon said. “We asked him before we endorsed him if the rumors were true, and he said they were not.”
-
Comment by Carl — February 22, 2006 @ 8:12 pm - February 22, 2006
How is Malin “the dems’ Jeff Gannon”?
Jeff Gannon was a fake reporter, as he had NO credentials at the time, who somehow managed to get a daily press pass to the whitehouse. Real journalists suspected he was a plant after the soft, extremely friendly questions he would ask constantly when called upon. Security logs, maintained by the Secret Service, also show him being at the Whitehouse when there weren o press events (i.e. he would have had no business being there). The fact he turned out to be a prostitute was just the icing on the cake.
The *only* thing he has in common with Malin is the prostitution thing. But calling Malin “the Dems’ Gannon” is like calling Bush the American Hitler.
Comment by The Angry Fag — February 22, 2006 @ 8:14 pm - February 22, 2006
Honestly Bruce, on the evidence presented, the Stonewall Dems would have to be angry for the reason they gave: that Malin lied to them, when he previously denied the rumors categorically.
If Malin did lie to them: it would be a recent action that puts his protestations of Christianity in doubt. Being a Christian is NO blank check to lie to others, saying “The Lord forgives me” when someone calls you on it. If Malin doesn’t know that, he must not be much of a Christian.
Comment by Calarato — February 22, 2006 @ 8:45 pm - February 22, 2006
Pictures! Where are the Pictures! (and prices)
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 22, 2006 @ 9:45 pm - February 22, 2006
I for one am thankful that the SD’s put ethics above partisanship and rescinded their endorsement of Boy Toy Malin. I never thought I’d see demoncRATS take the high road, and I am thoroughly impressed.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 22, 2006 @ 10:03 pm - February 22, 2006
If he lied to get their endorsement, there’s every reason to question his honesty. I don’t blame them for withdrawing their support. “Now I have moved beyond my mistakes”=”Shit, I got caught.”
Comment by JwGreen — February 22, 2006 @ 10:09 pm - February 22, 2006
Bruce, why did you even bring up the issue of religion? It looks like the Stonewall Democrats were angered and embarrassed by Malin’s lies about his past.
Comment by Jack Allen — February 22, 2006 @ 10:21 pm - February 22, 2006
#6 As a Dallas resident, I can tell you that Stonewall didn’t take the high road. They took the only road. Running as a former prostitute in Dallas is less than zero. I would say that it’s on par with being an enthusiastic puppy killer or someone who, while drunk, crashes into a lake and kills a passenger. It remindes me of the Simpson episode where Troy McClure says “Gay! I wish, that would be easy” or something along those lines.
I’ve met more than one local Stonewall member who thought/think that Hillary and Kerry are “too conservative”. So I would say that their retraction has more to do with having endorsed a drunken puppy blender operator than any high minded stand on principle.
Comment by Bobo — February 23, 2006 @ 1:03 am - February 23, 2006
Ain’t it a bitch when libs lie to each other?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 23, 2006 @ 3:47 am - February 23, 2006
#3
Make that Gullible Fag.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 23, 2006 @ 4:10 am - February 23, 2006
ThatGayConservative:
Thank you for resorting to namecalling and completely ignoring the actual content of my comment. Have a nice day
.
Comment by The Angry Fag — February 23, 2006 @ 7:28 am - February 23, 2006
Wow, how fast and far the Democrats retreat. I think we can impute, knowing what motivates most political groups to cultivate or advance or endorse candidates, the primary motive of Dallas’ Stonewall Dems: electability of a candidate. Which is the way it should be.
He lied to their leadership to secure an endorsement. His integrity and character was called into question for his lies, prevarications, and sordid past. And when character is questioned, a candidate’s electability hits the toaster’s crisp cycle.
Malin’s admitted prostitution was an unconvicted felonious act –whether the GayLeft wants to admit that sex for pay is morally reprehensible or not. The press wouldn’t have abated its inquiry on the matter; voters had every propriety to carry Malin’s admissions about his past into the balloting booth. He’d have been toast against anyone except a former priest pedophile.
Electability should drive endorsements; not wishful thinking. Malin needs to check the ego and withdraw quickly for the sake of the gay community.
The lasting problem is that, once again, the gay community gets tarred as supporting male prostitution, sex as a core value, and we lose more support outside our community in a world that should be a sympathetic audience.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 23, 2006 @ 9:20 am - February 23, 2006
#13 – Matt, you are correct. However, part of this stuff we bring on ourselves. Have you ever seen the MSM coverage of any Gay Pride parade? Who do they photograph? The outrageous drag queens, the cowboys wearing chaps with no underwear, the dykes on trikes, etc.
Do they ever photograph the people from church and community organizations who try to make the quality of life better for our community? Do they show the krewes of men who pool their income and resources together to raise money for HIV and AIDS patients? (At least here in Houston they do.) Do they photograph the two loving dads/moms with their biological and adopted children?
Nope. Because sex sells, not good deeds. And the MSM wants to shock the living daylights out of any “sympathetic” watcher and thus it reinforces our self-selected stereotypes. And goofballs like Malin just pull us two steps back when we take one step forward.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 23, 2006 @ 10:53 am - February 23, 2006
Amen to that, brother Peter.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 23, 2006 @ 10:57 am - February 23, 2006
What was really meant by comment #12.
“Thank you for resorting to namecalling and completely ignoring
the actual content of my commentmy deranged conspiracy theories and attempt to deny the fact that left attacked Gannon’s personal history as the primary basis for their smear campaign.”Comment by V the K — February 23, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - February 23, 2006
#3 The Angry Fag — February 22, 2006 @ 8:14 pm – February 22, 2006
How is Malin “the dems’ Jeff Gannon”?
He isn’t. It is only within the fevered brains of some who post here who try to suggest otherwise.
Regardless, it is fairly clear that more than a few of the “holier than thou” republican politicians in congress are prostitutes. They take bribes–otherwise known as “campaign contributions”–to get them to support screwing the taxpayers.
Comment by raj — February 23, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - February 23, 2006
#17, raj baby: “republican politicians in congress are prostitutes”.
No what’s clear is that many politicians in Washington are campaign finance whores –few prostitute themselves as effectively as TeddyK, HarryReid, PaddyLeahy, HowieDean, NancyP, and even the queen of campaign fiannce whores -HillaryC. But then, they not only sell out themselves to BigLabor, govt employee unions, the eco-terrorists, the murderous pro-choicers, trade protectionists and the ACLU, but they willingly sell out their country by undercutting troop morale and national will in the face of a WOT. Those are the TRUE prostitutes.
Republicans as prostitutes? Not really; campaign finance whores, sure. But then the system makes them and their decreasing ranks of Democrat Congressional colleagues do that in order to gain public office –Roll Call estimates it takes about $103,500/day in campaign contributions to fund a competitive Congressional seat race every two years. 7 days a week; non stop.
“screwing the taxpayers”? Right. Answer this quickly, name the last Congressional member convicted of a malfeasant act while in Congress?
Right, Dan Rostenkowski; formerly D-Illinois. Before you argue a entire group in Congress is “screwing the taxpayers”, maybe you ought to look behind you? The landscape is littered with convicted Democrat felons.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 23, 2006 @ 2:31 pm - February 23, 2006
That’s only because the party’s just getting started. Delay’s love affair with Jack, Frist pulling a Martha, etc.
Comment by The Angry Fag — February 23, 2006 @ 2:44 pm - February 23, 2006
Matt,
Buy a newspaper now and then.
A former fighter pilot from California would be amazed to hear that Dan Rostenkowski was the last congressman convicted of a crime while in office.
And Dan isn’t even the next to the last one.
Comment by Davebo — February 23, 2006 @ 2:46 pm - February 23, 2006
# 20 DaveBo
Tell ya what, Ill grab a paper (although that’s the last place any self respecting politico gets his news from these days) as soon as you GRAB SOME READING GLASSES.
The salient issue was “a serving Congressman convicted of a malfesant act while in Congress”.
Hmmm, like stealing money out of taxpayer-funded franking (that means postal) acct for your public office, taking new hire kickbacks from staff (staff even called it “Dan’s Share for cryin out loud –the corruption of the Left), forced campaign contributions from staff who were paid with taxpayer funds… etc.
Sorry, I think that’s a lesson in reading skills YOU need. Hell, my 8 yr old son does better at comrpehension and debate than that, DaveBo.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 23, 2006 @ 4:16 pm - February 23, 2006
# 19 AngryFag “Frist pulling a Martha”.
What a crack-up; be carfeul, you shouldn’t laugh when you’re in the middle of a highwire act and balancing “wishful thinking” with “partisan lies”. Did you forget Scooter? How about the pipe dream of Cheney being arrested for not having an upland bird stamp? Or the fantasy game to match all: A Bush Impeachment to try to vitiate the real impeachment of Bill Clinton.
God, I love the whacked Left when they scramble.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 23, 2006 @ 4:20 pm - February 23, 2006
and he does better spelling, too.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 23, 2006 @ 4:21 pm - February 23, 2006
Comment by Davebo — February 23, 2006 @ 4:42 pm - February 23, 2006
#12
Actually, it was spot on.
The content of your post was the usual steaming pile of liberal bullshit that only the gullible would believe. The content of your comment doesn’t deserve addressing anymore than I already have.
Comment by ThatGayCOnservative — February 23, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - February 23, 2006
#14
Well, they do photograph the biggest damn disco ball in the country, but I don’t recall seeing anything that you mentioned.
I’ll see your fundraising groups and raise you any coverage of the Montrose Clinic.
Comment by ThatGayCOnservative — February 23, 2006 @ 6:59 pm - February 23, 2006
#26 – TCG, just ask for any news coverage tape from the local affiliates from 1990-2001 and you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.
I’ll see your Montrose Clinic and raise you a Bering Omega. Call.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 24, 2006 @ 9:53 am - February 24, 2006
#18 Michigan-Matt — February 23, 2006 @ 2:31 pm – February 23, 2006
Do you normally edit what others have written to take it out of context? Why didn’t you repeat at least the entire sentence? It was
Regardless, it is fairly clear that more than a few of the “holier than thou” republican politicians in congress are prostitutes.
Did you miss the “holier than thou” part?
BTW, I’ll take your discussion regarding Democrats into consideration if and when I feel the desire to vote for one.
Oh, regarding “screwing the taxpayers.” I suppose I should have been more explicit. The Republicans are screwing your children and grandchildren when they become taxpayers. As far as I’m concerned, we should just “party on.”
Comment by raj — February 24, 2006 @ 3:29 pm - February 24, 2006