Riiiiiight. Like Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell, etc. White as the day is long.

One thing that I haven’t seen pointed out in the comments is that the “given limitation” of working as a conservative Republican staffer is that your sexual orientation (if discovered) can get your boss fired. So Republicans naturally aren’t going to want obvious gays working for them. It goes with the territory.

Another thing is that this election has shown that corruption and sex are MAJOR issues with Republican voters. I expect a quiet purge of gay staffers probably through attrition.

Thanks a lot to all of you “one issue Gay Marriage” zealots.

LOL….with Democratic campaign fund dollars and the full support of the Democratic Party.

Note the difference: Republicans demand resignation and cut off dollars, Democrats “censure”, but continue to send dollars and support.

And as for “protecting”, notice the hypocrisy; if this was such an open secret among the pages and on Capitol Hill, it stretches the bounds of credibility to assume the Democrats didn’t know about it. Furthermore, since Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats had the emails and instant messages months ago, why didn’t they act?

The answer is simple; what Foley did, although immoral and wrong, was also something done under his private email address and instant message identity, neither of which fall under the House leadership’s control, with former pages, who also aren’t under the House’s control, and in DC, where the age of consent is sixteen, which all these former pages were over.

Now, since when have Democrats demanded that personal emails and instant message records be tapped and read so that people making sexual advances and having sexual contacts with those over the age of consent can be identified?

Democrats have repeatedly fought ALL portions of that, arguing that age-of-consent laws are “imposing religious dogma”, whining about “privacy”, and going to enormous lengths to protect teenage sex, even demanding that parents be stripped of their right to know that their minor daughter is going to have an abortion because it would let them know that she’s having sex.

For Republicans, this provides ammunition that sex with and sexual advances towards those under the age of 18 should be criminalized. Have you finally come around, or will you now demonstrate your hypocrisy as well by arguing in favor of teenage sex?

There are pedophiles of both persuasions - homosexuals and heterosexuals. Just as in all of life - good guys and bad guys everywhere, they don’t wear hats that distinguish them.

Ooooooooooh Rogers is on BOR, asking the right to stand with him insisting that gays come out of the closet. This should be interesting.

applause!!

Nope. He’s merely doing what Mike Rogers is doing — and you don’t like it.

Check the timing, bud. Another example of how you’ll say anything, true or not, to rationalize a simple fact: The Republican leadership protected an ephebophile for years. That this abuse of power becomes a metaphor for the ethical rot that has overtaken the Republican leadership is not surprising.

Still waiting for an example of Democrats’ protecting such a person. And it ain’t Studds — he was censured and re-elected by his own constituency.

I repeat: If you want to keep your sexual orientation secret — and that’s what you’re talking about, not “privacy” — do not go into public life. Do not go into politics.

Democrats shouldn’t have thrown stones over the Foley thing. I agree he is a prevert and should be gone and that the Republicans that knew should pay.

What I find amusing is finally, after years of frustration, the Gay Movement’s dirty little secret is becoming widespread public knowledge. The dirty little secret? The close link between the mainstream Gay Movement and pedophiles.

Nope. He’s merely doing what Mike Rogers is doing — and you don’t like it.

By the way, when did the Democrats use homosexuality to discredit a candidate?

What do you think Mike Rogers is doing?

What do you think John Kerry and John Edwards were doing in their remarks about Mary Cheney?

And yet here you are saying that Rove’s political game playing is appropriate because the Dems set the rules (a hilarious assertion, since your party controls the entire government).

Actually, this is what I said:

Rove is doing nothing more than returning fire at you; if you want to play the outing game, he’ll out your folks.

You’re both wrong in doing it. But I don’t particularly care.

And hence the difference between us, JonathanG; I oppose outing and spreading rumors in all cases, you support it when Democrats do it.

I mean I may be confused but aren’t they counting on the homophobia of the right to either keep them out of the polls or to caused them to votes against gays and politicains who hire gays?

Note the numerous caveats there - “to the extent that I know”, “any of the people who helped us”.

Yes, NDT, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

Isn’t parsing fun?

Why should Nancy Pelosi accommodate an effort to pin this on her, when even a lot of Republicans admit that it’s other Republicans spilling the beans? You just want to bury the hideous indifference of the Republian leadership under a question of political timing.

And yet here you are saying that Rove’s political game playing is appropriate because the Dems set the rules (a hilarious assertion, since your party controls the entire government). Well, for the last six years Karl Rove has set the rules and queer bashing has been a big part of that.

So you’re surprised that the homophobia your party inspired amid the electorate has now come back to bash you?

Oh no! That couldn’t be it. It’s Nancy Pelosi.

Orwell couldn’t have even dreamed this crap up.

Rove spread the same rumor about a quite heteosexual candidate in Alabama and you know it. He also spread a rumor that McCain had fathered a mixed-race child. So, please, Rove isn’t outing: He’s lying.

And puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze. If your argument is that the Rovians are simply responding in kind when they out someone or spread unfounded rumors that someone is gay, then you should apply your own rationalization to Dems.

By the way, when did the Democrats use homosexuality to discredit a candidate?

Ah yes — “imperfections” and “expediencies”.

So in other words, supporting constitutional amendments to strip gays of rights and pandering to those same “primitives” is quite OK with you liberals.

And, by the way, the more you and your fellow leftists spew your disdain for others by calling them “primitives” and “supremacists”, the more you will continue to lose.

Actually, no.

Brian Ross’s words were as follows:

“I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans.

Note the numerous caveats there - “to the extent that I know”, “any of the people who helped us”.

Technically, that statement would be true if one Republican verified when somebody worked in a particular place.

In short, name sources — and explain why Pelosi refuses to testify under oath as to when and how she found out about the messages. If she is not guilty, according to hers and your logic, she has nothing to hide.

And this here, really, sums up the whole problem:

Yes, it’s icky that such a list might exist but, then, we have something worse than people who tell the painful truth. We have the Karl Roves — remember Ann Richards? — who fabricate rumors of homosexuality in order incite bigoted voters.

So what?

You and your fellow Democrats, in your attempts to rationalize outing, have said there’s nothing wrong with spreading whispers, innuendo, and outright public proof of a person’s sexual orientation.

Then you whine and cry because people like Richards get outed.

Rove is doing nothing more than returning fire at you; if you want to play the outing game, he’ll out your folks.

You’re both wrong in doing it. But I don’t particularly care.

The disclosure to ABC news, it’s been repeatedly announced, was by a Republican operative.

I am laughing, remembering how people here respond when a story unfavorable to their position is sourced to a liberal writer or publication. It is immediately dismissed. So here you are citing David Corn, a Nation columnist and author of a book very critical of George Bush.

But it serves you now to cite him, even though you would almost certainly disdain his usual positions and immediately dismiss them because of their liberal filter. I once cited a Media Matters factual report here and it was unilaterally dismissed — not on the basis of its content but on the basis of its origin.

What goes unconsidered here is the definition of privacy. It is a bit of a stretch for some of us to see how you go to work in politics and expect to hold onto your “privacy.” It reminds me of Andrew Sullivan’s claim that his privacy was violated after he placed advertisements for unprotected sex on public websites. Hello? If you go into PUBLIC LIFE, your life becomes subject to extraordinary scrutiny.

And further: What is more disturbing to you — the outing of a gay staffer working to advance an agenda that, say, criminalizes sodomy, or the refusal to let a gay man run for Senator while protecting his documented harassment of teenage pages? There is no sense that the latter is nearly as offensive to you as the former.

This “List” is nothing. You accuse the media constantly of fanning the flames of controversy but here you are buying completely into Corn’s brouhaha.

The notion that you can undertake a political career, a partisan one, and maintain “privacy” (what you really mean is “secrecy”) is ludicrous. Yes, it’s icky that such a list might exist but, then, we have something worse than people who tell the painful truth. We have the Karl Roves — remember Ann Richards? — who fabricate rumors of homosexuality in order incite bigoted voters.

What you are complaining about is sad but it is also nothing compared to the real issue here and the GOP’s own history of incing homphobia amid the electorate while preserving for its upper echelon the free indulgence of sodomy.

It’s beyond hypocrisy. It’s TRUE elitism.

In short, coming out as “not a monolithic Left Liberal Democrat” was a lot more painful than coming out as trans; and it was the Left Liberals that made it that way.

So, gentlebeings - if this is your shining example of compassion, I hope you will not mind if I turn down a second serving.

So, I am going to post a list of gay and lesbian faculty and staff at the college where I work, so that they can finally be free, and they can serve as mentors for our young people who are exploring their sexual identity and wondering if they’re possibly GLBTQQ.

LET FREEDOM RING!