Gay Patriot Header Image

Outing Gay Republicans to Advance a Partisan Agenda

When I used to read Andrew Sullivan’s blog with great regularity, I would find that while I didn’t always agree with him, when I did agree with him, it sometimes seemed that he nearly perfectly expressed my own thoughts. Just today when linked to his post on outing (via Ann Althouse, via Instapundit), I discovered the old Andrew Sullivan whose blog I once very much enjoyed.

Andrew doesn’t mince words when taking issue with what he calls the “outing crusade:”

The fact that their motives might be good is no excuse. Everybody on a witchhunt believes their motives are good. But the toxins such a witchhunt exposes, the cruelty it requires, and the fanaticism of its adherents are always dangerous to civilized discourse. What you’re seeing right now is an alliance of the intolerant: the intolerant on the gay left and the intolerant on the religious right. The victims are gay people – flawed, fallible, even pathetic gay people. But they are still people. And they deserve better.

While I’m not so sure there’s an alliance between the intolerant gay left and the intolerant social conservatives, I do think that the intolerant gay left is trying to use the intolerance of those social conservatives to split the GOP.

I agree with Ann that this tactic will likely backfire, that “these creepy, gleeful efforts at outing will only make social conservatives more conservative, and they will continue to look to the Republican party to serve their needs.” Jonah Goldberg (also via Instapundit) agrees: “The sort of scorched earth attack liberals have mounted in the wake of Foley is creating precedents I guarantee will haunt them in unexpected ways in years to come.

That there are those on the left who would attempt to play into the prejudices of the most anti-gay forces in our society in order to help defeat the GOP shows that they are more interested in advancing their own partisan agenda than in respecting the private lives — and personal choices — of individual gay men and women. For them, it’s all politics. (I’ve said this before. As have countless others.) While they may express noble sentiments about helping gay people, they could care less about gay individuals who happen to be Republican.

I can no longer count how many times those on the left have wondered how I could support a political party which has contempt for gay people. And yet while I don’t always agree with my party — or the attitudes of some of its members — I have never encountered the level of hate or vitriol that those involved in the outing campaign have directed against closeted gay Republicans.

On the one side, certain social conservatives criticize gay people in general. On the other, certain voices on the left, many of them gay, show no regard for the private lives of individual gay people. And demonize those with a political agenda at odds with their own.

It’s time to call these angry voices for what they are. I’m glad that Andrew has taken on those who would compromise the lives of individual gay men and lesbians to further their partisan agenda.

Share

81 Comments

  1. Obviously Sullivan has never read Frankenstein — or is oblivious to the irony of how his own diatribes of hate against Republicans and pontifications about the “evil” of not revealing one’s sexual orientation publicly are what fuel these kind of messes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 18, 2006 @ 6:10 pm - October 18, 2006

  2. I’ve always been against outing, and still am. It’s a nasty, viscious thing to do to people. I also think that the highlighted article paraphased in Dan’s post could be equally applied to the armed forces’ DADT policy.

    Comment by ndtovent — October 18, 2006 @ 6:15 pm - October 18, 2006

  3. The gay-left scorched Earth attacks are based on the belief that Christians hate gays with the seem drooling, deranged, wild-eyed hatred that the left hates Christians. The message is, “See, stupid skygod faithheads, the Republican party is filled with faggots! I bet that will make you hate them, you stupid tithing-redneck-WalMart shoppers.” I don’t think that degree of mass hatred exists, except among Fred Phelps and Democrats like him.

    Comment by Nobody — October 18, 2006 @ 6:18 pm - October 18, 2006

  4. In the 80′s republican politicans had to be ‘outed’ because of the AIDS Crisis. Then Clinton was elected and all was quiet. OUT Magazine went out of business, ACT-Up fizzled out, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was enacted and DOMA was signed by the gay rights saviour Clinton.

    Twenty years later and outing is necessary again because of the …..um, the …. Nevermind why, we just need to out them to save our rights. No not rights, but ….um…. oh nevermind!

    Comment by sandy — October 18, 2006 @ 6:24 pm - October 18, 2006

  5. I almost came around to thinking, this time Andrew got it right. Until I came to the line: “The victims are gay people – flawed, fallible, even pathetic gay people. ”

    He has to have his dig, he can barely tolerate these people – because they are Republicans. Therefore they are flawed, fallible and even pathetic. So thank you Andrew for letting us know that in your mind even the scum of the earth deserve some human decency.

    Comment by Leah — October 18, 2006 @ 6:37 pm - October 18, 2006

  6. I think the problem is that conservative Christians aren’t as stupid as the left thinks they are.

    I also think this tactic will eventually backfire.

    Comment by just me — October 18, 2006 @ 6:48 pm - October 18, 2006

  7. Leah, flawed and fallible they are — as is Andrew, as am I. But, it’s that word “pathetic” where he goes too far.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 18, 2006 @ 6:55 pm - October 18, 2006

  8. I am one hundred percent againt outing anyone against his will — or violating anyone’s privacy at all. But, I have to be honest: if someone has to live a life of either dishonesty or evasion to avoid people thinking he’s gay, the word that best characterizes that situation for me is in fact “pathetic.” It arouses pity in me.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 18, 2006 @ 7:07 pm - October 18, 2006

  9. pa·thet·ic (pə-thĕt’ĭk) also pa·thet·i·cal (-ĭ-kəl)
    adj.

    1) Arousing or capable of arousing sympathetic sadness and compassion: “The old, rather shabby room struck her as extraordinarily pathetic” (John Galsworthy).

    2) Arousing or capable of arousing scornful pity.

    I’m not sure pathetic means what most of you think it means.

    monty

    Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 7:07 pm - October 18, 2006

  10. Private lives and personal choices?? These people have made the personal choice to live a life of PUBLIC service and all that goes along with it. During the election season they eat, breathe and live the political platform of their candidate.

    Supporting to elect a candidate who likens your own life to beastiality, incest and polygamy to me is, as Mr. Sullivan aptly wrote, “pathetic” regardless of your political affiliation. I am not in favor of outing these people, but I am also not in favor of making them unsung heros either. I am more concerned about their lack of integrity than their sexuality.

    Comment by Scott — October 18, 2006 @ 8:06 pm - October 18, 2006

  11. Weller

    Comment by Samuel — October 18, 2006 @ 8:24 pm - October 18, 2006

  12. I’m voting Republican again and nobody will change my mind!
    Vote Republican people!
    Pass it on…
    : )

    Comment by Dave — October 18, 2006 @ 8:37 pm - October 18, 2006

  13. #10: I definitely agree with you. Those who seek to out people against their will are bad; those who hide themselves to further their political career are bad, perhaps worse.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 18, 2006 @ 8:53 pm - October 18, 2006

  14. The so-called outing that led to Sully’s rant is really an exposure of lewd public behavior engaged in by a supposedly staunch “family values” conservative, Sen. Larry Craig. The last time I checked, engaging in sexual activity in a public restroom is illegal in all jurisdictions I’m aware of and in some is serious enough to result in sex offender status for someone convicted of such a crime. Is anyone going to argue that such illegal activity should NOT be exposed due to the fact that exposure would be an invasion of that person’s privacy? Frankly, I think you can argue that Craig’s exposure as a hypocritical lawbreaker is even more warranted than that of Ed Shrock who IIRC wasn’t committing crimes when he was searching for sex partners.

    The claim that the “left” or “gay left” endorses the outing of GOP elected officials and policy makers is misleading because it is actually very controversial among the left in general and the gay left in particular. Indeed, there were numerous demands on dailykos yesterday for the removal of a diary that merely reported on the earlier exposure of Larry Craig’s illicit sexual activity on the Ed Schultz Show.

    Comment by Ian — October 18, 2006 @ 10:13 pm - October 18, 2006

  15. Andrew: “The fact that their motives might be good is no excuse.”

    Ummm… How can he even say their motives are good??? That makes no sense.

    In claiming it is a “fact” that “their motives are [somehow] good”, Andrew validates their case – implicitly undercutting the rest of his objections. Why resist the gay witch-hunters – or the Communist Party dictators, or the Inquisition, or the Islamists, etc. – if their motives are, in fact, good?

    Fact: Their motives are not good. Their motive is to impose their will on everybody else, whatever the cost. That, ipso facto, means their motives are B-A-D bad. And we should say so.

    Andrew: “the intolerant on the gay left [are allied to] the intolerant on the religious right.”

    Umm… WHO are these “intolerant on the religious right” who have been allied with the Left in pushing the Foley-related witch hunts / outings???

    Andrew doesn’t bother to say, or to offer evidence. Apparently, he just “knows” that “everyone” (in his audience) “knows it” to be true. Even though it may well not be.

    Comment by Calarato — October 18, 2006 @ 10:14 pm - October 18, 2006

  16. #12 Dave, my last Democrat vote was for Al Gore in 2000 (I am sure glad he lost.); never again will I vote for another Democrat.

    I will write my name in when the GOP representative does not deserve my vote but I can never vote for the hateful, spiteful, pityful liberal democrat.

    I pray for them.

    Comment by Ed of Tampa — October 18, 2006 @ 10:14 pm - October 18, 2006

  17. If Fred Phelps was not anti-troops, he would be the poster boy of the Dobson Conservatives
    He says what the Dobson conservatives feel. This is why you are so against the outings, because you know that many gay staffers will lose their job at the behest of the Dobson/Phelps lobby

    You conservatives should be rallying around Sullivan who seems to be the only person who is talking honestly about your party’s fundamental fundamentalist problems.
    But no, you ideologues associate criticism with hate. You rally around your leader like a muslim rallies around Mohamed

    Comment by keogh — October 18, 2006 @ 10:23 pm - October 18, 2006

  18. In the end, staying in the closet isn’t a good thing. It perpetuates the fear and loathing that is still associated with some people who are gay; we’d all be better off if everyone could be out.

    One of the concepts of America is to live your life the way you want, so if someone chooses to live and not be out, that’s their business.

    However, if there are closeted gays who are in government who are actively working against other gays via the legislative process, then they should be exposed for the hypocrits they are, and I don’t care if they are republican/democrat, conservative/liberal. I wish soemone would have outed Roy Cohn after he sat in the McCarthy hearings, smirking up a storm when snide comments were made about “fairies”

    Comment by Kevin — October 18, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - October 18, 2006

  19. #17 – 401k, who are you plagiarizing this time? Just curious.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 18, 2006 @ 10:38 pm - October 18, 2006

  20. Kevin in #18, how do you know that these gay guys aren’t lobbying their bosses behind the scenes to change their policies on gay issues?

    Keogh, I have no clue what your comment means for it certainly doesn’t reference this post, one where I basically agree with Andrew.

    And Ian in #14, there is no serious evidence to justify the allegations leveled against the Senator you reference in #14.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 18, 2006 @ 10:38 pm - October 18, 2006

  21. #20: “And Ian in #14, there is no serious evidence to justify the allegations leveled against the Senator you reference in #14.”

    You’re right Dan, they are merely allegations at this point. If they are actually false allegations, then I would hope that the Senator would go after Rogers for libel.

    There’s “rumors on the internets” that another page shoe – female this time – is about to drop. Dana Milbank knows. The fact that it only now may be coming out suggests it’s NOT a case of balancing with a Dem but instead another Repub. From the Midwest this time.

    Comment by Ian — October 18, 2006 @ 11:01 pm - October 18, 2006

  22. Just ran in to this place. It looks like there are seven or so men wanna be’s who can’t think themselves out of a paper bag. But no nevermind. Craig is one sick individual. I pity his poor wife. But his case is not so uncommon in the real world. I find it ironic that some punk ass terrorist from overseas can cause a bunch of sissy queens to run shouting, “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”. When past history has been full of since intances from the barbary prirates and beyond (backwards of course). You leave me no option but to say you are phonies.

    Comment by malcolm — October 18, 2006 @ 11:07 pm - October 18, 2006

  23. #20, par. 1 – I guess the same logic can be applied to perhaps some congregants of the Westboro Baptist Church??? I guess it is okay to be a member, just as long as you are trying to lobby Rev. Phelps to change his policy on gays? It’s an absurd argument. This is not a partisan, either these staffers live with integrity or they do not.

    Comment by Scott — October 18, 2006 @ 11:09 pm - October 18, 2006

  24. #20 ” how do you know that these gay guys aren’t lobbying their bosses behind the scenes to change their policies on gay issues?”

    Nobody thinks they are stupid. No one competent enough to get this sort of job thinks any amount of lobbying is going to change the stance of Hastert, Frist, or Santorum. They choose power over integrity.

    I also think those who see this as a scheme to split the GOP are barking up the wrong tree. Politics is dirty business and the DC gays are slugging it out. The closet cases use the government for their agenda and the activists are hitting back hard and its gotten personal.

    A week ago I thought this outing business was a minor silliness unworthy of the community. Now, I am frankly surprised at the number of prominent staffers that getting named and I am disgusted that the rot is so deep. The guys setting the agenda, no to ENDA, the Constitutional Amendment vote, all of it, is orchestrated by these closet cases. These guys deserve what they get.

    Now let’s get Mr. Thirty to post his “this this and this” links and Mr. Matt to use his Star Trek line, again.

    Comment by Sydney Talon — October 18, 2006 @ 11:15 pm - October 18, 2006

  25. #22 – “It looks like there are seven or so men wanna be’s who can’t think themselves out of a paper bag.”

    Malcolm, you’re right. And those 7 or so men actually happen to be the same libtard moonbat sockpuppet, writing under 7 different names.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 18, 2006 @ 11:19 pm - October 18, 2006

  26. It’s free speech man. He’s allowed to report anything he wants as long as it’s true.

    Don’t want to be outed? Then stop having gay sex. Especially in public restrooms.

    Comment by Downtown lad — October 18, 2006 @ 11:57 pm - October 18, 2006

  27. #8 Are gay Scoutmasters pathetic as well? Is Hillary too pathetic to be President since she refuses to come out?

    #14 & #21 IanRaj – Using your logic, the fact that Bill Clinton didn’t go after the women who exposed his history of sexual abuse and rape for libel means that his status as a dangerous sexual predator is an undisputed fact. Glad that you cleared that up.

    Comment by Bobo — October 19, 2006 @ 12:02 am - October 19, 2006

  28. you guys are like dinosaurs. bound for extinction.

    Comment by samuel — October 19, 2006 @ 12:43 am - October 19, 2006

  29. Vote Republican good people!

    Comment by Dave — October 19, 2006 @ 1:05 am - October 19, 2006

  30. “I’m glad that Andrew has taken on those who would compromise the lives of individual gay men and lesbians to further their partisan agenda.”

    And, like Andrew, you should take on Bush and the GOP, who, in fact, “compromise the lives of individual gay men and lesbians to further their partisan agenda.”

    VOTE SANTORUM!!!

    Comment by jimmy — October 19, 2006 @ 1:22 am - October 19, 2006

  31. Seriously, is this a grade school playground where people make up their own language? “Libtard moonbat sockpuppet”?!?! Well, I’m rubber and you, of course, are glue. (I just have no idea what the phrase means that’s bounced off of me and now sticks to you.)

    Comment by jimmy — October 19, 2006 @ 1:27 am - October 19, 2006

  32. Vote Republican good people!

    Comment by Dave
    ————————

    No “good people” here, Dave. :)

    monty

    Comment by monty — October 19, 2006 @ 1:28 am - October 19, 2006

  33. First I think hypocrite doesn’t fit the situation here. Isn’t a hypocrite someone who professes certain beliefs and doesn’t live up to them? When did homosexuality become a belief system?

    Second, when I was in school taking Women’s Studies classes and believed myself to be a feminist I was appalled to read an article by a feminist who was concerned about a sexual harrassment scandal that had recently broken and thought that although the congressman in question had abused his position in regard to female staffers (sexual harrassment) since he had always voted in “good” ways before feminists should cut him some slack. It was the first time I remember realizing that the Left sees people as groups, and to hell with the individuals run over in the process of acheiving group goals.

    Third, just because a majority of a group, i.e. women, blacks, gays, etc. believe something does not make it incumbent upon every member of that group to believe the same or else not be “authentic”. Or, in this case be accused of hypocrisy. If the majority of women in the U.S. vote Democratic I am not less a woman to vote Republican.

    Fourth, someone will argue that it is not just a question of majorities but also will claim a belief in gay marriage is instrinsic to being a “non-hypocritical” gay person, or a belief in affirmative action is instrinsic to being a “non-hypocritical” black person, etc. This ignores the possibility that a gay person might have considered the issue and come to a different conclusion. But the Left views people as groups and cannot stand when individuals deviate from the message. They think poor people should believe in Socialism and are baffled when that doesn’t hold true either. So far I haven’t heard a Lefty call a poor person a hypocrite over it, but I’ll bet the word pathetic has crossed their minds.

    Fifth, outing staffers is dumb. I’m a social conservative Republican who is opposed to gay marriage and I couldn’t care less whether staffers are gay. All that has been accomplished so far as I am concerned is reinforcing my belief that the Left has no integrity – always claiming to be for the people but always willing to stomp on individuals if it suits the “greater good” aka their seeking of power. If there is a criminal act taking place, fine, that should be dealt with. But just “being gay” is not a reason for me to dislike or disrespect a person or think they should be fired. Hypocrites = Lefties. It’s the Left that insists you stay on the reservation or else you deserve anything that happens to you. They want dignity and respect for all people, except those who disagree with them.

    Comment by random m — October 19, 2006 @ 1:42 am - October 19, 2006

  34. The so-called outing that led to Sully’s rant is really an exposure of lewd public behavior engaged in by a supposedly staunch “family values” conservative, Sen. Larry Craig. The last time I checked, engaging in sexual activity in a public restroom is illegal in all jurisdictions I’m aware of and in some is serious enough to result in sex offender status for someone convicted of such a crime. Is anyone going to argue that such illegal activity should NOT be exposed due to the fact that exposure would be an invasion of that person’s privacy?

    No.

    But in this country, we have a rule that says “innocent until proven guilty”.

    Since you and Rogers claim to have solid evidence that Craig is a criminal, present it to a judge and have him indicted.

    In fact, I hereby petition the GayPatriots to remove IanRaj from this board until such time as he provides positive proof of his claims, admissable in a court of law, that Craig is a criminal.

    Because, without that proof positive, he is nothing but a liar.

    Since IanRaj wantsw

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 19, 2006 @ 2:41 am - October 19, 2006

  35. Now let’s get Mr. Thirty to post his “this this and this” links and Mr. Matt to use his Star Trek line, again.

    Gladly.

    Especially since Democrats like yourself have proven in those “this, this and this” links that you have zero problem with either supporting or giving money to people who support state and Federal constitutional amendments and laws to strip gays of their rights — and you do it yourself.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 19, 2006 @ 2:44 am - October 19, 2006

  36. Dan, GPW, I totally agree with everything you wrote in this post.

    Like you, I have not experienced any problems in Republican circles because of my sexual orientation. But, then, I live in a community where the Dobson-Falwell-Perkins-Santorum-Sheldon-Brownback folks don’t dominate the Republican Party.

    I have been troubled by the hateful reaction of some on the religious right (particularly the Family Research Council) to Secretary of State Rice’s swearing in of the gay official. I thought she was very kind, thoughtful and gracious to make his partner and the partner’s mother feel welcome. (And it didn’t seem to bother Laura Bush at all.) The reaction to that, along with some other things that have occurred, seem to me to be evidence that the religious right is heading toward its own witch hunt/purge with or without help from the left.

    By the way, I’m surprised an incident tonight on Hannity and Colmes hasn’t been mentioned. I agree 100 percent with the condemnations of leftists trying to out gay Republicans. I also think we ought to condemn efforts by the right to out Democrats.

    Tonight, Sean Hannity provided a forum and encouragement for some Ohio radio talk show host (a real nutjob BTW) to accuse Congressman Ted Strickland, Democratic candidate for Ohio governor, of being gay. The main allegation was that Strickland has knowingly employed a pedophile on his congressional staff. But then the radio host slipped in a little aside about Strickland “going off to Europe with his boy toy”.

    Shame on leftists for spreading unsubstantiated allegations about Senator Craig. And shame on ritht-wingers for spreading unsubstantiated allegations about Congressman Strickland. The practitioners of smear, be they liberal or conservative, are despicable.

    Comment by Ashley Hunter — October 19, 2006 @ 4:06 am - October 19, 2006

  37. #36: I am against invading anyone’s privacy, including outing. But if, as I think, you are saying that it’s a “smear” to out someone, then I’m slightly offended at that particular terminology.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 19, 2006 @ 7:42 am - October 19, 2006

  38. #33: I’m a social conservative Republican who is opposed to gay marriage and I couldn’t care less whether staffers are gay.

    Out of curiosity, are you against gay marriage because you think government should get out of the marriage business, and expanding it would only be a further entrenchment of something government shouldn’t be doing anyhow? Or are you against gay marriage because you think marriage can only be between a man and a woman?

    (My own opinion is very close to the first option I listed, though my own preference is that the law be fairer in the meantime.)

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 19, 2006 @ 7:46 am - October 19, 2006

  39. Ted Strickland was one of only 13 Congressmen (all Democrats, BTW) to oppose a House Resolution that condemned paedophilia. Also, one of his employed staffers has a history of sex offenses. So, the claims against him are quite substantiated, and I think voters have a right to know about that, and form their own opinions.

    Comment by V the K — October 19, 2006 @ 9:11 am - October 19, 2006

  40. “It’s free speech man. He’s allowed to report anything he wants as long as it’s true.”

    Except, of course, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that Mike Rogers is, in fact, telling the truth – even if he himself thinks he is truth-telling. Anyone can say anything about anyone. Someone could tell Mike Rogers that I showed up at the Duplex Diner in DC wearing nothing but a diaper and a pink baby bonnet, and he might believe it, but that would not make the deliciously funny story true.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 19, 2006 @ 9:17 am - October 19, 2006

  41. I abhor witch hunts, either on the left or right. The lefties are showing their true colors as are the fundies (with their hysteria over the Dybul swearing-in).
    #34 – NDT: we actually have a rule about innocent until proven guilty? Ha! Tell that to Nancy Grace.

    Comment by Jimbo — October 19, 2006 @ 10:49 am - October 19, 2006

  42. #34: “remove IanRaj from this board ”

    Ah yes, your authoritarian impulses finally bubble to the surface. I wonder what took them so long.

    Even though the Craig story is under discussion throughout the media, our resident authoritarian religionist seeks to stifle free discussion of this very relevant topic.

    Comment by Ian — October 19, 2006 @ 11:05 am - October 19, 2006

  43. This may disappoint some of my supporters, but we’re keeping Ian on this board. I have met him — and like him even as I disagree with him. And he is far more civil than Raj ever was.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 19, 2006 @ 12:56 pm - October 19, 2006

  44. Could someone help me out with the whole hypocrisy thing? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the esteemed Senator is quite gay. Let’s also assume that he has voted or taken stands on issues that aren’t in the best interest of the gay community. How does this make him hypocritical in the role of a democratic representative, the very foundation of our Republic??

    Isn’t it the role of a representative to, you know, represent the desires of his constituents over and above his own personal beliefs? John Kerry would have had us believe so with regards to his Catholicism as pertains to abortion. If I remember correctly, while he found it personally wrong, didn’t he pledge to act as a representative of his party and vote accordingly? Would this not have made Kerry a hypocrite too?

    I’m very curious about this. I see this branding of hypocrite applied quite often, and wonder how it reconciles with the function of being a representative for a constituency.

    Comment by Hogarth — October 19, 2006 @ 1:01 pm - October 19, 2006

  45. And he is far more civil than Raj ever was.

    So, why is monty still around?

    Comment by V the K — October 19, 2006 @ 1:30 pm - October 19, 2006

  46. #43 – Dan, I’m confused by one little thing in what you wrote.

    Why would you term Ian “civil” when, right in #42, his mode of argument is to imply that NDT is a fascist (i.e., authoritarian religionist)?

    Please note, I am NOT necessarily agreeing with NDT’s language in #34 (calling Ian a liar) nor taking a position, at this time, on whether Ian should be removed. I am asking you a sincere question.

    For the record: since you have met Ian (as you have met me, and others) and believe him not to be raj, I for one will now take the raj/Ian sockpuppet possibility (which, I must say, was raised on legitmate evidence at the time) as settled in the negative.

    By the way, or secondarily: I would be interested to know if you agree with NDT’s analysis in #34 that Ian (among others) is pushing a reprehensibly dubious claim; one which MAY indeed be a lie.

    Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 1:33 pm - October 19, 2006

  47. Senate Democrats Bankroll Extortion
    by Mike Rogers

    “the breaking Larry Craig story is not a story about sex, or sexuality, or hypocrisy, it’s about criminal extortion. Several months ago, Mike Rogers threatened to out an unnamed United States Senator if he voted to confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. As we have covered here and here, this is a textbook case of extortion – seeking to obtain a “thing of value” (in this case, an important Senate vote) by threat to injure the reputation of another. When Mike Rogers carried through with this threat, he indicated that he was not merely bluffing; he was actually engaged in criminal extortion. Several right-leaning blogs have sought to tie this to Democrats by virtue of the recommended diary at Kos – it’s important, however, to remember that Senate Democrats are tied in to this in a much more direct fashion – many of them bankrolled the Ed Schultz show, which provided the forum for Rogers to act on his extortionary threat.”

    From Redsate.com

    http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/senate_democrats_bankroll_extortion

    The Federal Government and State of Idaho need to charge Mike Rogers with “BLACKMAIL” (CRIMINAL EXTORTION) and Senator Craig should file a Libel Law Suit against him for millions. He needs to be taught a lesson.

    Comment by Brit — October 19, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - October 19, 2006

  48. Dan, I’m glad you’ve met Ian –if you had piped up a bit earlier you could have spared all of us at least a little of the raj/Ian sockpuppet dialogues. I’m not mad you didn’t block him, Dan; I’m ticked you waited til now to personally vouch for him. Be fair to your readers, Dan. I sent you an email about the appropriate blocking of raj and you could have taken that moment to write –”I’ve met Ian and claims of his sockpuppetry are unfair”. Ten words, Dan. Hell, 3 would have done it –”He’s real, stop”. Again, be fair to your readers.

    However, on the spreading of spurious rumor that Sen Larry Craig habits public johns for gay sex -Ian is being a despicable tool of people you should shun like MikeRogers and JohnAravosis. Isn’t the whole bloody point of some of your recent posts that outing is morally reprehensible? Hello?

    And then you stand by and allow Ian’s post to stand while he spreads the rumor with a butter knife?

    Come on you can do a whole LOT better.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 19, 2006 @ 2:02 pm - October 19, 2006

  49. Ian at #42 “Even though the Craig story is under discussion throughout the media….”

    Umm, right Ian. It’s under discussion throughout the media?? Is that the media represented by the GayLeftBorg’s tabloid blogs or is that the media that worships at the liberal Democrat altar?

    Mark Foley’s scandal WAS under discussion throughout the media… that fits. Not your wild-assed speculative rumor-mongering about Sen Craig.

    And your use of all the “merely”, “only” and other cute debate qualifiers to minimize the immoral actions of your heroes MikeRogers and JohnAravosis doesn’t cut it Ian. You’re a true partisan hack that’s sold our community’s interests downriver for your place on the Democrat Plantation. You’re as bad as you think any gay GOPer might be on their worst day.

    Shame on you.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 19, 2006 @ 2:15 pm - October 19, 2006

  50. WOW!!

    Bravo and accolades to Dan. I always had a feeling that you were a fair minded individual.

    In the deepest show of respect I could possibly give to you, because of your brave and impartial support of Ian from the ones on this board who are now starting to piss and moan about your decision….even to the point of denying they were ever a part of the attempt to oust Ian because of his opinions……I will henceforth back away and only post when I have a point of view about a specific topic. No more drive by sniping from me.

    And further, if Dan (only) ever asks me to leave….I will respectfully leave. I promise.

    Good for you, Dan. Kudos!!

    monty

    Comment by monty — October 19, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - October 19, 2006

  51. random m nailed it in post #33

    and fear of being associated with people like mike rogers is the best reason to live life in the closet

    Comment by sloop — October 19, 2006 @ 2:45 pm - October 19, 2006

  52. Instapundit has a link to Iowahawk… it’s a letter from Dean to the anti-homo Republican base (satire). “It’s the Homos Stupid!” I think it’s still on the top of the main page.

    Comment by Synova — October 19, 2006 @ 3:03 pm - October 19, 2006

  53. “Scott” wrote: Supporting to elect a candidate who likens your own life to beastiality, incest and polygamy to me

    So, Scott, to you “beastiality, incest and polygamy” are all equally bad?

    Thanks for that wonderfully tolerant comment. I’ll be happy to pass it on to folks in the poly community. I’m sure they’ll be happy to hear where they stand.

    Comment by Greg D — October 19, 2006 @ 3:05 pm - October 19, 2006

  54. monty writes: “No more drive by sniping from me.”

    I’m glad you appreciate a fair assessment of your role here, monty. You nailed it perfectly. The snide corner is still all yours.

    Then further monty writes: “And further, if Dan (only) ever asks me to leave….I will respectfully leave. I promise.”

    LOL! Come on monty, your promise isn’t worth the time it takes to hold you to account.

    Gheez Dan, with “friends and fans” like these, you might want to rethink some of your positions.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 19, 2006 @ 4:35 pm - October 19, 2006

  55. I am new to the comment section of this blog, but I must say that theres a whole lot of what you’d call snideness on both sides of the debates here. This is true even by the standards of other online forums I participate in. I think it’s a bad idea to take that tone; although it makes your opponent madder, it inevitably makes third parties think less of the commenter, not the target.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 19, 2006 @ 6:07 pm - October 19, 2006

  56. V the K, #39: The unsubstantiated allegation about Ted Strickland is that he vacationed in Europe with his “boy toy”.

    BTW, I’ve since read press reports that the Ohio Republican Party and the party’s candidate for governor, Ken Blackwell, originally raised the charges against Strickland. The radio nut from Ohio and Fox’s empty suit Sean Hannity merely passed it on to a national audience.

    Comment by Ashley Hunter — October 19, 2006 @ 7:56 pm - October 19, 2006

  57. Ashley, you may not like Hannity –which is your choice (notice, I didn’t say it’s your “right”). I don’t care for Cooper, King or Matthews. But none of them are “empty suits” as you put it. The only empty suits I see on the MSM are Katie Couric and Jon Stewart… “empty” as in void of substance and gravitas. Which is far different from the MSM types who play fast and loose with the privileges of the 4th Estate and know that they’re doing exactly that.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 19, 2006 @ 8:06 pm - October 19, 2006

  58. And now, along the lines of Ian’s rant above:

    “The so-called outing that led to Sully’s rant is really an exposure of lewd public behavior engaged in by a supposedly staunch “pro-values” liberal, Ohio gubernatorial candidate and current Congressman Ted Strickland. The last time I checked, engaging in indecent exposure is illegal in all jurisdictions I’m aware of and in some is serious enough to result in sex offender status for someone convicted of such a crime. Is anyone going to argue that such illegal activity should NOT be exposed due to the fact that exposure would be an invasion of that person’s privacy? Frankly, I think you can argue that Strickland’s exposure as a hypocritical lawbreaker is even more warranted than that of Ed Shrock who IIRC wasn’t committing crimes when he was searching for sex partners.”

    Now, let’s see if Ian has any problem with that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 19, 2006 @ 10:27 pm - October 19, 2006

  59. #48: Good grief, can’t you take ANY responsibility for your gullibility? In effect, you and others have been calling me a liar for several months in spite of plenty of evidence that you were wrong. If the owners of this blog had ever had the slightest idea that I was not who I claimed to be they would have banned me in a heartbeat. And I wouldn’t blame them for doing so. That you and others eagerly continued your little fantasy is not the fault of Dan or Bruce. Rather you only have yourselves to blame if you now look a bit foolish. Instead, you whine that Dan’s to blame. Sheesh.

    Comment by Ian — October 19, 2006 @ 11:30 pm - October 19, 2006

  60. #58: No one has suggested that Strickland has engaged in indecent exposure so your pathetic attempt at at comparing the two situations is patently absurd. I also note that you don’t seem to have any qualms in making up and spreading allegations when it’s a Democrat.

    Comment by Ian — October 19, 2006 @ 11:38 pm - October 19, 2006

  61. You note incorrectly.

    But, since you yourself have made it clear that you see nothing wrong with making up and spreading allegations against people, especially when they’re Republicans, you are criticizing me for doing something that you praise and promote yourself.

    Not that I’m terribly surprised.

    But I think GPW may be a little less trusting now that your hypocrisy, dishonesty, and hate on the topic of outing are so blatantly obvious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 20, 2006 @ 2:12 am - October 20, 2006

  62. Thanks sloop. I wasn’t sure any thoughts typed at midnight would make sense.

    kdogg36 – My starting place is religious so the “just a man and a woman” standard would fit. However, not being a theocrat (what a funny idea for America – I cannot imagine Baptists and Mormons for instance sitting down to hash out a party platform) I do not think my religious belief ought to be enough of a reason for anyone else.

    A serious question for me is why does the “gay community” want same-sex marriage? From what I have seen, it is about two things, benefits and status. Neither of which are enough to change such an important institution. My best friend does not have insurance. Should I “marry” her so she’ll have benefits? I could go on for quite awhile about her suffering, pull a lot of heart strings. But is her suffering enough a reason to change the definition of marriage? And the status reason is as weak. If a gay couple can marry will that convince all those who who are bigoted against gay people “whoops I was wrong”?

    I was told on an earlier thread that my idea that marriage should be monogamas was “totalitarian”. My sense is there are a few gay people who want marriage for the same reason the majority of heteros want to be married – long term establishment of families. The authors of this blog are the first to lead me to believe that that is the case, BTW. I find this possibility heartening.

    But the majority treat marriage as a prize. “Check it off the list, we’ve met our goal.” No regard for the institution of marriage in this attitude. Marriage is about families, which usually means children. The institution has been damaged over the last decades and children have suffered for it. Yet here are many saying “oh well if you feel that strongly about it, why not”. No one seems to think about the long-term consequences of such a change. It is all about what we want now, not what is good for society over time.

    Once upon a time people regarded marriage as a fundamental building block of society. It carried with it a whole host of assumptions along with the codified (inheritance, immigration, etc.) affects. Assumptions perhaps often honored in the breach, but to this day if you hear a couple has married what do you assume? That it is intended to be long term, monogamas, a financial and emotional partnership, and probably you expect kids to come too.

    Would that change if gay marriage were allowed? Since the majority of gay people do not seem to share these same assumptions, then yes, I believe a sudden influx of thousands of gay couples into the marrieds pool would affect how people look at marriage. I would expect actually that once the goal is achieved the next step would be to hammer into all our heads that it is “intolerant” “totalitarian” etc to expect that marriage means anything other than what a married person feels like it means at the moment. There are few enough already who take the vows seriously. Marriage as an institution may survive such an assault. But it will be damaged. And so a pillar of society will be damaged. A pillar that has a lot to do with raising healthy children. There are other ways to leave your property to your loved one and other tasks marriage has built-in.

    And of course gay marriage opens the door wide open for polygamy. Which is another way I do not want marriage to change for both the fear that women’s status will take a hit and again that children will suffer overall.

    Comment by random m — October 20, 2006 @ 3:01 am - October 20, 2006

  63. And so a pillar of society will be damaged. A pillar that has a lot to do with raising healthy children.

    In the 2.5 or so years since gay marriage has been a reality in Massachusetts, which children do you think have been damaged, and how? Since you admit it’s kind of a statistical question (not all gay couples would weaken the concept of marriage, just most of them), which specific couples in that state do you think are damaging the institution of marriage?

    Given that gay marriage is no longer theoretical in one state, I think it’s fair to challenge those who believe specific harms will happen as a result of gay marriage to show how it has happened there. (Indeed two of the original plaintiffs from the marriage case there are divorced, which is certainly sad and, frankly, annoying, but hardly unique.)

    Incidentally, I’m someone who cares so much about the institution of marriage that I want to see the government get out of it altogether. It’s too important to be

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 20, 2006 @ 8:01 am - October 20, 2006

  64. …left in the hands of the State. (sorry)

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 20, 2006 @ 8:02 am - October 20, 2006

  65. In the 2.5 or so years since gay marriage has been a reality in Massachusetts, which children do you think have been damaged, and how?

    Dude, do you think in say, 1967, two or so years after the Great Society, that the damage had already been noticed? No, it took a generation for the damage wrought by easy divorce, welfare dependency, socialist-run schools, high-taxes, soft crime policies, and all the other abominations of Sixties liberalism to manifest themselves. It will take at least that long to see if same-sex marriage was a good idea. Stanley Kurtz would make a case that in countries that have had same-sex marriage for longer, the social fabric is showing signs of fraying. Others dispute his findings, but there is, at a minimum, evidence for both sides.

    Comment by V the K — October 20, 2006 @ 8:11 am - October 20, 2006

  66. #59… lol. Nice try at spin, Ian. For someone who literally plays the sleaze smear game on Senator Craig and then, in the same thread, tries to whine that as a smearer he has been unfairly treated? Spin, spin, spin.

    Like Slick Willie’s recent mixed metaphor… Ian is “just trying to run that dog down the same old path and it ain’t working… it’s just an old dog” that don’t hunt. Spin away Ian.

    Like I wrote above, my beef is with Dan’s “Road2Damacus” conversion on the sockpuppet artistry here by several GayLeftBorg commenters and spinsters. If he knew you were who you said you were and weren’t a deceitful incarnation of raj, Dan should have said so earlier… maybe he did, maybe I and all the other readers just missed it? But out of respect to his readers, he should have said something. I don’t think he did. Or maybe he just met you the night before last and he took the earliest opportunity to correct the record? Or maybe there’s some other rationalization out there to explain Dan’s silence?

    But you go ahead and spin away Ian. Smear away as well as you’ve most recently done with Senator Craig… and lots of others. But try to get the facts right for once: Bruce did block raj and others here. Appropriately. And long overdue. I didn’t mention Bruce in my comments; he acted appropriately.

    But I doubt the truth is something you actively pursue or protect –because for you, it isn’t of value.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 20, 2006 @ 9:15 am - October 20, 2006

  67. #66: “Bruce did block raj ”

    And when I kept posting, that didn’t give you a clue? There were plenty of other clues but I suspect you simply wanted it to be true else you would have simply emailed Bruce, the blog owner, privately and asked him. Frankly, you and others jumped on the sockpuppet bandwagon so quickly and completely that you were going to have egg on your faces no matter what Dan or Bruce said or when they said it.

    Comment by Ian — October 20, 2006 @ 10:28 am - October 20, 2006

  68. I used to be supportive of outings for the most extreme cases. These would be politicians who almost always supported anti-gay legislation and also continued to denigrate homosexuality, gay men, and lesbians in their speeches. And although I generally believe in the right to privacy, I had trouble being concerned for these individuals who sought to ruin the lives and families of millions of gay Americans. And the thought that there seems to be politicians who constantly vote antigay, stump about how immoral “sodomy” is, how gays shouldn’t be in the military, etc., but yet are gay, have been in the military themselves, and go to Massachusetts to get married, still makes me seethe. And I still wonder why it seems that many people are more concerned about the privacy of a distasteful politician than a gay teenager who is bullied.

    I changed my mind about outing after several back and forth exchanges with some of the posters here and other blogs (including NDT). As distasteful as some of these “victims” are, I’ve come to the conclusion that outing doesn’t help the cause for gay rights, and in fact, hurts it. Because even in the extreme cases I talked about, what happens is that Americans now find out that another gay person is a distasteful hypocrite (or whatever term you want to use). Also, even if the outing has legs, and causes the politician to resign, he/she will mostly get replaced by someone who is just as anti-gay. The other problem is the question of where one draws the line. And then outing easily becomes a form of blackmail against someone who may disagree with you on some positions. For example, there are many gay people on the left and the right that do oppose gay marriage. And I otherwise abhor some of the tactics that the outers use.

    The reality, unfortunately, is that outing will apparently continue and perhaps escalate. It simply has been added to the list of exposing hypocricy or perceived hypocricy. And yes, it is all political. Many people think that this is just a fair a game as when John Kerry, who campaigned partly on the environment, owned 3 or more SUVs, and was exposed. So now at least the closeted politicians know what they are up against, and now have to decide like any other hypocrite if continuing in politics is worth the risk of having their closet door opened.

    Even if there wasn’t any outing, I would still like to see more politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, to start coming out on their own. At least the circumstances would be more favorable, and give the gay community a more positive light in the eyes of American voters. And as mentioned on this blog, the only voices we seem to hear are the extreme left, which clearly isn’t helping our cause. But at least they aren’t afraid to speak out. When will the others, the (not as extreme left), moderates, and the right speak out as well, and show the rest of America that the gay community is not a monolith?

    Comment by Pat — October 20, 2006 @ 10:38 am - October 20, 2006

  69. #66: It never mattered to me. RajIan or IanRaj, they were both interchangeable members of the gayleftborg. 2 of 9 or 3 of 9, what’s the difference? Neither their opinions nor their manner of explressing them were in any way distinguishable.

    On the left, and especially in the gay left, there is zero tolerance for diversity of opinion beyond you can disagree that Bush is Hitler, but only if you say it’s because Bush is worse than Hitler. Try going to any left-wing blog and expressing support for the Iraq War, or tax cuts, or criticism of state-run health care. Or, ask Joe Lieberman how tolerant the Democrat party is of people thinking independently.

    Comment by V the K — October 20, 2006 @ 10:38 am - October 20, 2006

  70. Again, Ian, you have significant problems with the truth. I did email Dan and Bruce, both replied. “Other clues” as a defense just don’t cut it, Ian. I would argue Dan had a positive duty to his readers –let’s leave off wild-assed rumor-mongering amoral apologists like you he might wish to defend– to set the record str8. His readers deserved better.

    My beef isn’t with you –although you’re trying hard to spin it that way. Try to develop the skill of discernment, eh? You may not need to use it anywhere else in the blogland you habit –DialyKos, MyDD, BlogActive etc– but it’s a critical skill here.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 20, 2006 @ 10:41 am - October 20, 2006

  71. #66 – Bruce’s ability to block anyone is limited, or largely moral / symbolic. I won’t offer technical details, but raj and all the other sockpuppetmasters know it well. The fact that one particular sockpuppet identity disappears, Ian, means this: absolutely nothing whatsoever.

    Comment by Calarato — October 20, 2006 @ 10:44 am - October 20, 2006

  72. #61: “You note incorrectly.”

    Then you’re inconsistent since in #58 you allege that Strickland has committed lewd public behavior and indecent exposure:

    “…lewd public behavior engaged in by a supposedly staunch “pro-values” liberal, Ohio gubernatorial candidate and current Congressman Ted Strickland. The last time I checked, engaging in indecent exposure is illegal in all jurisdictions I’m aware…”

    I am all for exposing hypocrisy and illegal activity among politicians and I’m not going to make an exception for such hypocrites just because they’re closet cases. That said, a principled case can be made that “outing” a homosexual is always wrong and should never be done. But those who would do so should consider carefully such an absolutist position and its implications. Just as an example, if you had clear evidence, say video, that the President of Iran engages in homosexual activity, would you hold to your principle and refuse to expose him as a hypocrite?

    Comment by Ian — October 20, 2006 @ 10:50 am - October 20, 2006

  73. VdaK, the GayLeftBorg is apt description of how the gay left community responds to all things –political actions, govt economic policy, cultural aversion to sociopathetic impulses on the gay left, etc.

    It’s this big, self-sustaining, evil presence on the landscape and it intends to succeed in its goals even if it means harming the gay community’s long term interests.

    I think it’s why people like Ian and Kevin and sean and jimmy hate Bush so much… they wrongly see in him a similar kind of relentless, tenacious drive toward political purity and it fries them to no end.

    Why do they hate so much in others that which is so prominent in themselves?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 20, 2006 @ 10:50 am - October 20, 2006

  74. Calarato speaks the truth, Ian. Without requiring credentials to post, as I pointed out here repeatedly in the past, a pesky little mind can circumvent the system all day long… as raj, QueerPat, CowBoyBob, monty and others demonstrate.

    Thanks for the reminder, C.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 20, 2006 @ 10:54 am - October 20, 2006

  75. V the K: Dude, do you think in say, 1967, two or so years after the Great Society, that the damage had already been noticed?

    No. But I also know that most of the liberal abominations you mention are ones that I would oppose on general ethical principles, the principles on which most of my political beliefs are based. I wouldn’t need to try them out and examine the results to know that they were wrong.

    Gay marriage, however, is a bit tricker. Why? Because I really think that the government shouldn’t be fooling with personal relationships at all, other than enforcing contracts between people. So, I really don’t think marriage should be a legal category.

    However, that is a far-off idea that probably won’t happen anytime soon, so the question I have to deal with is: as long as there’s a government concept of marriage, should same-sex couples be able to participate? Part of me says that it would only mean further entrenchment of an aspect of law I don’t support anyhow. But the other, greater part of me knows that there’s nothing inherently different about gay partnerships as opposed to straight ones; they are entered into for the same reasons, and are identical in all the essentials. And thus I think that, as long as the law recognizes marriages at all, it should recognize both gay and straight ones in the same manner.

    I suppose I could be wrong that gay life partnerships aren’t essentially the same as straight ones, but I have a lot of evidence supporting my belief that they are. So it would take significant evidence to the contrary for me to change my mind.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 20, 2006 @ 1:50 pm - October 20, 2006

  76. Just as an example, if you had clear evidence, say video, that the President of Iran engages in homosexual activity, would you hold to your principle and refuse to expose him as a hypocrite?

    Yes.

    Even though I detest Ahdimejad as a bigot, a racist, a lunatic, and an anti-Semite, outing is wrong. I can demonstrate that he is incorrect without having to root through his garbage cans.

    In addition, by outing a gay person in Iran, I would be condemning him to death. I dislike the man, but my dislike is not sufficient grounds to have him killed.

    Furthermore, Ian, if one attempts to justify outing using the moral relativism of “hypocrisy”, the problem with doing so becomes immediately apparent…..”hypocrisy” means different things to different people.

    For instance, I can show you an example in which the person involved was clearly hypocritical — they were engaged in an activity which confirmed that they were gay, but did so in secret, hiding their homosexuality and maintaining a public image as a scion of an influential institution that flatly condemned and opposed homosexuality.

    But I have yet to see gay activists support his outing.

    And whenever I am tempted to resort to something similar, I remember his case…….and that my actions against someone else would justify the wrong that was done to him.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 20, 2006 @ 3:15 pm - October 20, 2006

  77. All, I know this person who posts on the web as “Ian” who, as Dana Milbank knows, was found to have touched another male student in a lewd fashion on the penis in 1991.

    This is but one instance so far, we know of a lot more but will hold off right now, that is, until he stops posting on the web.

    Comment by ben internet. — October 20, 2006 @ 10:12 pm - October 20, 2006

  78. As someone who works within an appendix of the Beast itself (the fed’ral gub’ment) I can tell you that one of the worst kept secrets in goverment is that Capital Hill staffs are loaded with young homosexuals, whether closeted or not. Why? They make great employees for their slave driver bosses: very few of these staffers have families and children and so they can work long hours and travel a lot without having to stay home to deal with ear infections and leave work early to attend school plays. That is the real truth.

    Finally, outing someone for purely partisan political purposes is a downright shitty thing to do.

    Comment by Letalis — October 21, 2006 @ 11:29 am - October 21, 2006

  79. Sounds like a bunch of gay republicans want to use a code of silence, the same code police departmens used in the fifties and sixties when they raided bars, actually killing people or ruining their lives. Live and let live but trust and verify. If your actions or your bosses actions cause glbtg harm you can expect to hear about it.

    If all else fails, you should be outed for your cruelty. Hell, they should throw you out of gaydom.

    Larry LA

    Comment by l sprenger — November 2, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - November 2, 2006

  80. Who is worse the politicians who get elected by preaching family values ,God ,etc or the trained monkeys who continue to fall for that ?

    Comment by Luis — August 27, 2007 @ 7:47 pm - August 27, 2007

  81. I think the problem is that conservative Christians aren’t as stupid as the left thinks they are.

    I also think this tactic will eventually backfire.

    Comment by just me — October 18, 2006

    I live in a Southern “BIble” state and I disagree they are that stupid and they continue to fall for that nonsense. Lack of health care ,jobs,etc thats not an issue but anyone who preaches “Gods values” they vote for.

    Comment by Luis — August 27, 2007 @ 7:50 pm - August 27, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.