W: “Incredibly Supportive” when learning Mehlman was gay
Seems that I was right when I wrote that many of Ken Mehlman’s “former White House and GOP colleagues have been contacting him privately to offer their support.” Well, we don’t quite yet have evidence that many have done this, we do know that at least the most important member of the Administration has. From Mehlman’s interview with Politico:
Q. Have you talked to President Bush about this?
A. Yes, I talked to him and he was incredibly supportive.
Q. Was it this year?
A. Yes.
Q. How widely known was this before?
A. It was not known by anybody. It was known by me. That’s it.
George W. Bush? Supportive?? But, I was told he was a demon who hated gay people!
(FYI, this is not the “next post” I mentioned in my preceding post. I was working on that one when I discovered this interview.)
39 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
This is why all gays should come out when they are young and stupid, because they can then write off the hormone-driven, thought-free, illogical, wrong-headed, excitable, yet inevitable political lurch leftward to the same hormones and dearth of knowledge and experience that made the rest of the world act young and stupid when they were young and stupid.
When you wait til you’re Mehlman’s age, you just make an ass out of yourself. He will now support a lot of liberal crap that he will only later realize is liberal crap if and when his estrogen levels return to normal and he returns to thinking rather than feeling.
If and when he ever returns to thinking, he will realize that supporting traditional marriage is not anti-gay anymore than biology is anti-gay.
But his interview suggests that he is already operating under the lie that gays are victims. He is lost. Hes more concerned with fitting in with his new “community” than thinking clearly, or challenging their tediously false assumptions.
Comment by American Elephant — August 26, 2010 @ 6:19 am - August 26, 2010
President Bush remains a very class act. Never did I think that he disliked anyone
Comment by PatriotMom — August 26, 2010 @ 6:52 am - August 26, 2010
Agreed PM. Again, he shows that the Republicans are the party of tolerance.
Comment by The_Livewire — August 26, 2010 @ 6:56 am - August 26, 2010
Phyllis Schlafley is “incredibly support” of her son John too. Who in the world would characterize her as anything but a wonderful loving mother?
Comment by Sean — August 26, 2010 @ 7:09 am - August 26, 2010
http://www.ken-mehlman.com/
If you want to take a close look at Ken Mehlman…review his professional history. He is an asset whether publicly “out” or not…..his professionalism and conservatism is the focus not his personal life.
Comment by Jay — August 26, 2010 @ 8:35 am - August 26, 2010
Yeah he was incredibly supportive in pushing forward the idea of a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage too.
Comment by Countervail — August 26, 2010 @ 8:44 am - August 26, 2010
Not everyone thinks that same sex marriage is important.
Comment by PatriotMom — August 26, 2010 @ 8:56 am - August 26, 2010
This is a man who actively participated in ruining the lives of LGBT Americans. That he didn’t know (or so he says) he was gay at the time is of absolutely no importance. It doesn’t excuse his behavior. It does not bring him closer to deserving forgiveness. Mehlman’s attempt at salvation would be akin to a racist white man who railed against blacks only to find out his grandmother is East Africa, or a neo-Nazi who spread filth about Jews only to learn his mother is one — and had a change of heart about their hatred.
This man aided in Republican terrorism of people like you and me. That he now happens to say publicly he is sexually attracted to other men does little to excuse the damage he’s caused. And it’ll take more than raising a million bucks for AFER to ever associate his name with “do-gooder.”
So, who’s gonna be willing to stamp his gay card? Not me. The man is a disgrace — as a human first, as a gay man second.
Comment by steve — August 26, 2010 @ 9:16 am - August 26, 2010
steve’s rambling does have one amusing point.
“Mehlman’s attempt at salvation would be akin to a racist white man who railed against blacks only to find out his grandmother is East Africa, or a neo-Nazi who spread filth about Jews only to learn his mother is one — and had a change of heart about their hatred.”
I guess he’s not a Robert Byrd fan then.
And ‘terrorism’? Really, does steve have any setting between ‘vitrol’ and ‘hyperbole’?
Comment by The_Livewire — August 26, 2010 @ 9:30 am - August 26, 2010
As a lifelong conservative, I learned early on that you cannot unscramble eggs. You accept new realities and you carry on.
I have no doubt that George Bush is of the same make-up. Had he reacted to Mehlman in any other way, I would have lost a great deal of respect for George Bush.
It really is possible to be black, gay, female, disabled, etc. and still move forward, upward and onward. Being stuck on self-pity is chump work and it draws swarms of liberals who circle you and land all over you like a turd in the road.
Comment by heliotrope — August 26, 2010 @ 9:46 am - August 26, 2010
I’m of different minds on this. I hope Mehlman’s public coming out means he has found the inner peace with his sexuality he seems to indicate he needed and struggled with for years. Unlike steve and PO’ed leftist groups, I neither require nor seek an apology, public groveling, etc. from Mehlman. Having said that this in no way means I’m not still PO’ed myself about GOP tactics using gays as their wedge issue in the 2004 campaign. I said then and still do that LCR was 100% right not to endorse Bush in 2004 because of this. There wasn’t a chance in hell I would have voted for that SOB John “Jenghis Khan” Kerry and at the time I generally supported Bush mainly for his post-9/11 actions, but I haven’t forgotten. I wouldn’t support any medals for the man I suppose yet I’m not a child needing to publically nurse every grudge against individuals, do not really feel particularly aggrieved by Mehlman personally anyways, and recall my own many faults. So guess I’ll just say that I wish Mehlman the best and welcome his current efforts with AFER.
One more thing, I’m glad that Mehlman came out publically and would like to see even more conservative/libertarian/moderate politicos come out to bring more balance. “Gay” is most definitely not synonymous with liberalism and regardless of political affliation, being gay doesn’t make us all monolithic in our thinking. Straight or gay people differ with each other regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal.
Comment by John — August 26, 2010 @ 10:24 am - August 26, 2010
kinda fitting with Mehlman’s coming out. . .
http://www.robbiewilliams.com/news-blogs/shame-video-premiere
Comment by rusty — August 26, 2010 @ 11:28 am - August 26, 2010
Meanwhile, liberals are aiding REAL terrorists while imagining Republicans are. What an oxygen thief.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 26, 2010 @ 11:41 am - August 26, 2010
So, who’s gonna be willing to stamp his gay card? Not me. The man is a disgrace — as a human first, as a gay man second.
Notice the hierarchy in the gay and lesbian community.
Pedophile and supporter of NAMBLA like Harry Hay? Community hero.
Wrong political affiliation? “Disgrace”.
Gays and lesbians like steve are cheering child rapists while screaming at and blasting anyone who disagrees with them politically.
And then steve has the chutzpah — or cluelessness — to whine about people not “respecting” him.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 26, 2010 @ 11:46 am - August 26, 2010
I’m sure he’s simply crushed not to have your endorsement.
Comment by Eric in Chicago — August 26, 2010 @ 12:03 pm - August 26, 2010
Here’s the question I’d love to ask a homophobic Republican after a speech. Unfortunately I’ll never get a chance to ask it since it would require actually attending a speech by one of these assholes.
“Since it’s inevitable that as an anti-gay Republican you’ll eventually get caught up in a gay scandal of your own, I was wondering if you’d give us a preview? Will it be meth and male prostitutes, chasing underage pages, cruising for sex in a public bathroom, or is your hypocritical scandal actually going to surprise us?”
If any of you get the chance, please feel free to use it.
Oh, and Eric in Chicago, just continue being the House Faggot for the GOP. Good dog.
Comment by steve — August 26, 2010 @ 12:54 pm - August 26, 2010
Wow,
Whomever is writing ‘steve’ you have the vitreol of the left down perfectly.
Comment by The_Livewire — August 26, 2010 @ 1:13 pm - August 26, 2010
I guess the left would only have been happy if George W Bush publically denounced Ken Mehlman and dropped the hard F-bomb in describing him in the most vile terms possible.
Oh wait, it didn’t happen.
Comment by Nick — August 26, 2010 @ 1:48 pm - August 26, 2010
Speaking of “terrorism”, steve, who was it that issued a Fatwa against the Mormon Church during the Post Prop 8 Days of Pissy?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 26, 2010 @ 2:08 pm - August 26, 2010
I need at least to see this in print once: Mr. Mehlman doesn’t owe me or a single solitary person on this entire planet one moment’s thought, concern or attention let alone explanation or ‘penance.’ Besides himself, he’s beholding to no man, for no thing. Nada, zilch, zero, period.
Those demanding recompense and action, decrying this man’s decision and life, whose lips are as poisonous as Cleopatra’s asp: may you be vexed tenfold by individuals as caring, concerned and courteous to you as you have been to him, one you do not even know.
Comment by rodney — August 26, 2010 @ 2:36 pm - August 26, 2010
Wow, rodney and I agree on something
Comment by The_Livewire — August 26, 2010 @ 2:46 pm - August 26, 2010
#8: “The man is a disgrace — as a human first, as a gay man second.”
Isn’t it hilarious when leftist fools like steve confirm their humorless inability to detect irony? steve condemns Mehlman “as a human first, as a gay man second,” because he committed the heresy of refusing to live his live as a gay man first and as a human second.
Comment by Sean A — August 26, 2010 @ 2:51 pm - August 26, 2010
This really makes my head hurt. Meth, male prostitutes, chasing underage pages, cruising for sex in a public bathroom are all what …….. the exclusive domain of gay democrats? Huh? If any gay gets caught in these activities of choice, why would only a republican gay be “hypocritical” and what is “hypocritical” about thinking with your sexual drive rather than your brain? If you let lust drive you, it seems you are fairly single-minded.
Why is it that democrats are automatically excused from hypocrisy? Nancy Pelosi and whole Kennedy clan are Roman Catholic and treat church doctrine as a meaningless mattress tag, but that is not hypocritical, it is marvelously informed and forward thinking.
steve scares me because I fear that he has no concept of how corrupted his mind is. The amoral among us can blend in and go with the flow or they can choose to be disruptive and non-productive. Given his druthers, it appears that steve prefers to feel victimized by those who see him for what he is and consequently avoid him like the plague. What is certain, though, is that the amoral person has no sense of responsibility. He operates only from a sense of convenience.
Comment by heliotrope — August 26, 2010 @ 2:57 pm - August 26, 2010
“…It was known by me. That’s it…”
That funny! Tee-hee.
Comment by SPTN58 — August 26, 2010 @ 4:26 pm - August 26, 2010
Oh, isn’t this rich. I’m being insulted by a troll. Color me thoroughly unimpressed.
Amateurs are so…tiresome.
Comment by Eric Olsen — August 26, 2010 @ 6:18 pm - August 26, 2010
I don’t even think he’s real! He can’t be! Dan, Bruce… One of you guys pulling a fast one????
Comment by Sonicfrog — August 26, 2010 @ 6:20 pm - August 26, 2010
I honestly don’t see where you’re reading that in Mehlman’s remarks, AE. The V-words I’d use to characterize his answers to the interviewer would be “vague,” “vapid,” “vacuous” — but not notably “victimized”!
The snort-able low point of the interview had to be his answer to “When did you decide you were for gay marriage?”:
That’s one lightning-fast segue from (unelaborated) “personal factors” to “gay marriage has been polling better in recent years”!
Comment by Throbert McGee — August 26, 2010 @ 6:29 pm - August 26, 2010
By the way, in calling Mehlman’s answers “vague,” etc., I didn’t actually mean it as a personal attack on him — which is to say that I think his answers were par for the course. I’d expect ANY politico giving an early interview under these circumstances to be similarly evasive and waffle-y.
Comment by Throbert McGee — August 26, 2010 @ 6:54 pm - August 26, 2010
#16: Holy cow steve…I’m not sure if, as a straight man, that I’m allowed to be offended at that, but…wow man. Just wow.
But I suppose if black men are allowed to call each other the “N-word” I suppose the “F-word” is acceptable in the gay community. ?
Pardon my ignorance if if I’m missing something, but if I dropped that word on any of the posters here, would I not be (rightfully) banned?
Comment by AF_Vet — August 26, 2010 @ 9:59 pm - August 26, 2010
AF_Vet,
I’m convinced ‘steve’ gets a pass because he’s not real. He’s one of the regulars doing an extreme leftist parody.
Comment by The_Livewire — August 27, 2010 @ 6:52 am - August 27, 2010
Steve writes that: This is a man who actively participated in ruining the lives of LGBT Americans.
1. How did he do that?
2. How were the lives of LGBT Americans ruined?
Were they summarily terminated ¨en masse¨ from their employment?
Were they forced to vacate their living quarters and become street people?
Were they branded on their foreheads with the scarlet letter ¨G¨ so that heterosexuals can avoid them like the plague?
Were they denied access to supermarkets and stores that theyhave to subsist on the government dole and charity?
If ruined is only about gay marriage not all of us care about one way or another. Personally, I prefer to live in sin. I can´t afford the palimony that will be part and parcel of gay divorce. .
Comment by Roberto — August 27, 2010 @ 12:45 pm - August 27, 2010
Sodomy laws have historically been cited to support prohibiting gay people from doing things (e.g., teach school, adopt children, … ). Texas was one of a handful of states left with a sodomy law that made gay sex illegal. When Governor, Bush promised to veto any attempt to repeal that law, saying he liked the message it sent. That message is quite clear; it says that gay people are second-class.
Asking whether Bush is a “demon” who “hated gay people” is making a caricature out of an important question. Even if he doesn’t rate demon status, the fact remains that he and the Texas GOP were happy to make lives harder for gay people. Bush knew full well that the Texas law had symbolic value and thus had effects beyond just criminalizing sex between men. Read the Texas GOP’s current platform; they say the practice of homosexuality “tears at the fabric of society”, and that they want their sodomy law back. They do not wish gay people well.
Now, with respect to Bush’s tenure as President. In several election years, like clockwork, he and his party pushed for a constitutional amendment on marriage that they knew had no chance of passing. These were election year stunts to get votes by means of a divisive issue.
I do not share the view that Bush is a class act.
Comment by Tom Ace — August 28, 2010 @ 1:25 am - August 28, 2010
No one cares, Tom Ace, because we’re well aware of what gays and lesbians like you supported for your precious Obama Party.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 28, 2010 @ 4:50 pm - August 28, 2010
Let me know when you can find something comparable to Bush and his Texas friends’ support of sodomy laws.
Comment by Tom Ace — August 28, 2010 @ 7:36 pm - August 28, 2010
With pleasure, puppet.
You see, puppet, everyone realizes that you and yours are just hypocrites. You support and endorse your Obama Party regardless of what it does.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 29, 2010 @ 12:06 am - August 29, 2010
I haven’t said a word here about who I support or why, but somehow you think you know.
When I asked for something comparable, I had in mind a Democratic platform statement, or a quote from a Democrat in office–not a rant from the likes of Farrakhan.
Comment by Tom Ace — August 29, 2010 @ 2:34 pm - August 29, 2010
I haven’t said a word here about who I support or why, but somehow you think you know.
It’s actually pretty straightforward, puppet.
You see, you ranted and raved about this before:
In several election years, like clockwork, he and his party pushed for a constitutional amendment on marriage that they knew had no chance of passing.
And then, when I pointed out how members of your own Obama Party supported it, you changed the subject and tried to get away.
Just as now, when I point out how your Obama Party’s base says that gays are “filthy” and condemns them, you try to spin in another direction.
If you truly cared about any of these things, you’d condemn your Obama Party and its members for these examples. But, as we see here, you don’t, so it becomes more than obvious that you really don’t care about any of these things. In fact, you support and endorse the Obama Party base and the Obama Party when they push laws that you whine make gay and lesbian people “second-class citizens”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 29, 2010 @ 6:10 pm - August 29, 2010
The topic here was Bush. And about Bush, you’ve effectively said so what if he said that being gay should be illegal, ’cause Farrakhan said some stuff too.
You have been consistently boorish here (with name-calling and by making crude assumptions about me). I’m through responding to you.
Comment by Tom Ace — August 29, 2010 @ 7:19 pm - August 29, 2010
“Now, with respect to Bush’s tenure as President. In several election years, like clockwork, he and his party pushed for a constitutional amendment on marriage that they knew had no chance of passing. These were election year stunts to get votes by means of a divisive issue. ”
And this is different from the ‘too much lip, not enough action’ pitches to repeal DADT, or repeal DOMA?
The difference is, people believe that the DOMA ammendments are needed to prevent judicial malfaence that judges like Walker proved would happen.
Comment by The_Livewire — August 30, 2010 @ 2:28 pm - August 30, 2010