Gay Patriot Header Image

Is DNC chair anti-gay?

According to Michael Alan, blogging at Legal Insurrection, U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the current chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is attempting to brush aside the actions of her New York House colleague, claiming that Anthony Weiner “is dealing with ‘a personal matter.’”  That “personal matter” is the Congressman’s tweeting a certain semi-lewd picture to a college co-ed.

When, however, a male congressman sent somewhat lewd messages to young men, she not only castigated her colleague, but demanded the resignation of the House Speaker as well, suggesting he was complicit in those shenanigans.  While Alan attributes the difference in her reaction to the partisan affiliation of the congressmen in question, we should also note that she has called for a much harsher censure of the man sexually drawn to members of his own sex while seeking to excuse the behavior of an apparently heterosexual federal representative.

Could it be that she used the pretext of the 2006 scandal involving Congressman Foley to draw attention to these misdeeds of a gay man, so reminding people of the shibboleth that gay men regularly prey on teenage boys?  And yet she finds it excusable that a married straight man would use electronic media to flirt with a woman less than half his age.  This Democrat appears more ready to criticize a gay man than a straight one.

I’m sure HRC is already looking into the matter and asking why the Democrat who showed such outrage over Foley’s illicit electronic missives to young men would be so indifferent to Weiner’s tweets to young women.

(Via Instapundit.)

Can Gay Democrats Do No Wrong?

Now, I don’t know much about the specifics of the allegations leveled against outgoing Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), save that House Majority Leader  Steny Hoyer knew about them before Massa’s announcement yesterday.  So, it seems they are pretty serious.  One thing I do know–or pretty much can assume based upon reaction to past such scandals–is that should this Democrat indeed have sexually harassed a male staff member, gay groups will dismiss it, perhaps even celebrate him as some kind of victim.

Yet, if he had had a (R) after his name, well, he’d be defined as some kind of self-hating pervert.

Remember Gerry Studds, the late Massachusetts Congressman who had had in 1973, while a member of the House of Representatives, a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male page?  Or Barney Frank who let his lover run a brothel out of his home while he signed off on that pimp’s parking tickets?  Or Jim McGreevey?  Or Kevin Jennings? They do get a bit better treatment from the gay groups than say do folks like Mark Foley.

It’s not about the behavior, it’s about the partisan affiliation.

When Studds died, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese called Studds a “pioneer”,  saying that older gays had an obligation “to tell a story of courage, hard work and remarkable oratory . . . [to] a younger generation who did not know Gerry Studds“.  Two years previously when then-New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey was caught in a scandal, involving putting a potential male love interest on the state payroll, Solmonese’s predecessor Cheryl Jacques did not fault the Democrat’s bad behavior, instead portrayed her fellow partisan as courageous:  “Coming out is a deeply personal journey and Governor McGreevey today showed enormous courage.

There are many gay people whose examples we can and should emulate, like Mary Cheney, Ellen DeGeneres, Neil Patrick Harris and Jim Kolbe.  Yet, there are gay people who do behave badly.  They deserve condemnation as much as do such charlatans as John Edwards.

John Edwards does not represent straight men.  In a similar manner, Frank, McGreevey and Studds are not representative of gay men.  Their behavior is embarrassing to gay people.  And the heads of gay organizations should criticize them for behaving badly.

But, perhaps because of that all-purpose (D) after their names, they become immune to criticism from those who claim to speak for our community.

BREAKING: US Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) To Retire;
Reports Suggest He’s Mark Foley, Only Worse

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 4:48 pm - March 3, 2010.
Filed under: Congress (111th),Democratic Scandals,FoleyGate

You just can’t catch a break being a Democrat in Washington these days.  Or a Hill staffer being pounced upon by dirty old men…

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) will not seek re-election after only one term in office.

According to several House aides – on both sides of the aisle – the House ethics committee has been informed of allegations that Massa, who is married with two children, sexually harassed a male staffer.

Massa, whose departure endangers Democrats’ hold on a competitive seat, told POLITICO Wednesday afternoon that no one has brought allegations of misconduct to him.

Asked about the sexual harassment allegations, Massa said: “When someone makes a decision to leave Congress, everybody says everything. I have health issues. I’ll talk about it [later].”

Massa recently suffered from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and he has said that his experience with cancer drove his interest in running for office so he could help reform the health care system.

A 20-year Navy veteran, Massa was elected to office last November. He serves on the Agriculture, Armed Services and Homeland Security committees.

Massa is scheduled to hold a conference call at 3:30 this afternoon to announce his decision, which came as a complete surprise to several of his freshman Democratic colleagues in the New York delegation.

As a freshman representing New York’s most Republican House district, Massa was one of the most endangered Democrats in the delegation. Republicans had been aggressively targeting his seat and landed top recruit Tom Reed, the Republican mayor of Corning, to challenge him.

Massa is now the 15th House Democrat to announce retirement plans, with 11 of them leaving districts that Republicans are aggressively contesting. House Republicans face 19 retirements within GOP ranks, but most of their departing members hail from safe seats.

More on this story as we get it!

UPDATE (from Dan):  As per my Rangel post, something tells me that Mass won’t get the Foley treatment.  It’s that all-purpose (D) after his name.

UP-UPDATE (from Dan):  Just fixed the title.  He’s retiring at the end of his term, not resigning.  Now, didn’t Mark Foley resign when he got caught?  Guess there are different standards for different parties.  That all purpose (D) again.

UP-UP-UPDATE (from Dan):  Well, looks like Bruce could see into the future.  🙂  Massa is going to resign.

On Tim Mahoney, Mark Foley and Media Bias

Two years ago at this time, you could not open up a newspaper or turn on a TV newscast without learning about the follies of then-recently disgraced (& then-recently) former Congressman Mark Foley. That Florida Republican had been sending sexually explicit Instant Messages to male House pages.

Now, we learn that Tim Mahoney, the Democrat who won Foley’s seat in Congress, paid “a $121,000 payment to a former mistress who worked on his staff and was threatening to sue him.” The affair begin “in 2006 when Mahoney was campaigning for Congress against Foley, promising ‘a world that is safer, more moral.’

So, why is it that we don’t get wall-to-wall news coverage of the Mahoney scandal?  The Democratic House leadership knew about it before the story broke this week.  And here, there is hush money, something absent from the Foley scandal.

Is it the gay angle that made the Foley story so sensational?  Or did MSM merely use the story to advance their narrative about the hypocrisy of gay Republicans?  Or was it that pesky little (R) after Foley’s name, but not Mahoney’s?

Methink the explanation is that last one, given how little attention the MSM has paid to various Democratic scandals this year, including that of another Florida Democrat, Robert Wexler and of New York Democrat Charles Rangel. Not to mention the fundraising shenaningans of the Obama campaign.

Why is it that the MSM only get into high dudgeon when the scandal involves Republicans?

I guess it’s up to us bloggers, like Gateway Pundit who’s been all over this story, to go where the MSM refuses to tread.

UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin builds on this theme (below the “jump”): (more…)

FoleyGate Redux: Trandahl vs. DeLay

I know I’m not the only person that wonders where Mark Foley is these days.  Especially when he was part of the endless line of celebrities with problems queued up at their favorite rehab center last year.  Thankfully, at least Foley has had the sense to remain quiet.  But that can’t be said for all of the players in the so-called “FoleyGate” story from October, 2006.

One of the main players in the Foley scandal was former US Clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl.  I questioned Trandahl’s involvement in the scandal in this post last October detailing the comprehensive involvement of the Human Rights Campaign and Foley’s demise.

Well folks, in a gift from the blog gods, Trandahl is talking.  And it sounds like he’s gone the David Catania/John Aravosis route of Gay Redemption:  “I was a Republican, but they hated me, so now I’m a GOP-basher.” (h/t – The Corner/NRO)

Here’s an interesting tidbit buried at the end of Kevin Naff’s exclusive Washington Blade piece on Jeff Trandahl, the former clerk of the House of Representatives who says he confronted Mark Foley “dozens” of times about his inappropriate behavior towards pages:

He said he had long planned to retire after 20 years of government service and noted that his departure was set well before the scandal broke. Trandahl thanked former House Speakers Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and current Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for supporting him during his tenure in the House. But he said former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) had long sought to oust him from the job because he is openly gay.

Pretty convenient to put your long-planned retirement at the feet of alleged Tom DeLay homophobia now, huh? 

More from the RollCall story on DeLay/Trandahl:

Former House Clerk Jeff Trandahl says former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) “had long sought to oust him from the job because he is openly gay,” according to a report in the Washington Blade.

Trandahl made the comments while speaking to a group of gays and lesbians aboard the ship Queen Mary II during a cross-Atlantic trip, according the Blade. (GP Ed. Note – I’m guessing this wasn’t a Log Cabin-sponsored event.  So the Gay Left cocktails were on full display, no doubt.)

A spokeswoman for DeLay dismissed the charge that her boss wanted to sack (that is, fire) Trandahl. “We have no idea where this comes from, but it’s a very serious accusation and an outright lie,” she said.

A former GOP leadership staffer who served during DeLay and Trandahl’s tenure seemed surprised by Trandahl’s claim that DeLay wanted him fired, doubting that he was even aware the former Clerk was gay. “No member of Congress has a worse gaydar than Tom DeLay,” the former aide said.

Okay…. now THAT is funny.  Having met DeLay numerous times in my former job, I would have to agree.

I’m wondering if there are more memoir-esque tales from the Foley Files to come.  My only question left for Trandahl is more fundamental:  Did you have any involvement in the Instant Messages that were released?  After all, you seemed upset by Foley’s behavior, and you were an HRC board member at the same time an HRC staffer was digging up the Foley dirt.

Hey, I’m just asking.

[Related Story:  Trandahl breaks silence on Foley scandal – Washington Blade]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Dissecting Jim Kolbe

Chris Crain has a great report on his blog about the parting comments by US Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) as he retires from Congress.  Here are some excerpts…

His last session of Congress behind him, retirement from public office only days away, Jim Kolbe has finally found his voice — or at least cleared his throat.  The gay Republican from Arizona granted a few farewell interviews before he steps down after more than two decades in Congress, to be replaced fittingly by a Democrat.

So with absolutely nothing left at stake, no political capital to lose, Kolbe finally took baby steps toward righting two long-standing wrongs: He admitted he was wrong to vote in favor of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and for the first time I’m aware of, he came out in favor of gay marriage.

Unfortunately, Kolbe’s timidity on gay marriage, DOMA and immigration reform aren’t the only things tarnishing his two decades in Congress. The Mark Foley scandal stuck to Kolbe as well, since it turns out one of Kolbe’s former pages asked the Arizona congressman to help convince Foley to stop contacting him. Both interviews touch on the subject, though he told the Blade only that he was happy the House ethics committee concluded no rules were broken. He doesn’t mention that the House report largely lets him off the hook because he is retiring from Congress and thereby escaping the committee’s jurisdiction.

It didn’t have to be this way, of course. But as with Foley and other closeted politicians, Kolbe is in many ways a product of his generation. His departure leaves gay Republicans with no out representatives in Congress, and we can only hope that whoever follows in their footsteps will do so with greater integrity.

Read the whole thing!  Chris has much more about the Kolbe-Foley Page Scandal connections and the lingering questions.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Dem State Senator — “Foley’ed”, But Re-Elected

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 10:25 pm - November 15, 2006.
Filed under: FoleyGate,Post 9-11 America

Now when this happens to a Republican Congressman, he does the right thing and resigns.  And if he hadn’t he would have been kicked out by the GOP Leadership for his actions. 

But not state Senator Dan Sutton, Democrat of South Dakota, who has a similar “page problem.”  Nope, he decides to run for re-election…..and wins. (h/t – VtheK)

South Dakota state senator who’s under investigation has resigned his current term, but plans to show up for the new session that starts in January.

Democratic state Senator Dan Sutton of Flandreau has been accused of acting improperly with a high-school student who served as a page during last winter’s legislative session. One of Sutton’s lawyers has said Sutton did nothing wrong.

In a letter dated today to Governor Rounds, Sutton resigned for the rest of this term but did not step down from the 2007 session.

Sutton was re-elected last week with 57 percent of the vote.

I guess that’s because it is okay to be a child predator in the Democratic Party (*cough* Gerry Studds *cough*).

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Camille Paglia Slams Democrats Over Foley Politics,HRC Employee Worked in Democrat Senate Office

Yet another important voice (and someone I rarely agree with) who is channeling GayPatriot this morning…..

The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media to push this story in the month before the midterm election seems to me to have been a big fat gift to Ann Coulter and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was “Foley, Foley, Foley!” — and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.

After three or four days of it, as soon as I heard Foley’s name, I turned the sound off or switched channels. It was gargantuan overkill, and I felt the Democrats were shooting themselves in the foot. I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil. Whatever short-term political gain there is, it can only have a negative impact on gay men. When a moralistic, buttoned-up Republican like Foley is revealed to have a secret, seamy gay life, it simply casts all gay men under a shadow and makes people distrust them. Why don’t the Democratic strategists see this? These tactics are extremely foolish.

Not only has the public image of gay men been tarnished by the over-promotion of the Foley scandal, but they have actually been put into physical danger. It’s already starting with news items about teenage boys using online sites to lure gay men on dates to attack and rob them. What in the world are the Democrats thinking? We saw the beginning of this in that grotesque moment in the last presidential debates when John Kerry came out with that clearly prefab line identifying Mary Cheney as a lesbian. Since when does the Democratic Party use any gay issue in this coldblooded way as a token on the chessboard? You’d expect this stuff from right-wing ideologues, not progressives.

Because the Democrats don’t care about gay people unless they are getting homo campaign contributions or they can throw our community under the bus for political gain.


To that point, it is becoming quite clear that the Democrats were intimately involved in the suppression of potential criminal emails for the sole purpose of political gain.  RadarOnline is reporting that the fired Human Rights Campaign employee who started the Foley scandal is Lane Hudson.  Mr. Hudson was a one-time Democratic Senate staffer and was hired by HRC for field work shortly before the phony “StopSexPredators” blog appeared. 


Lane Hudson – Democrat Activist & HRC Employee
Who Suppressed Emails Of A Potential Child Predator

And here is Mr. Hudson’s Friendster profile.  Matt has more on Mr. Hudson’s long history of being a Democrat activist in the comments below. 

My question is this:  What did Mr. Hudson do from the time Sen. Hollings left the Senate in January 2005 until the HRC hired him this fall? 

I certainly hope that Joe Solmonese has reached out to the FBI to cooperate with their investigation.  If he hasn’t, he damn well better.  I’m sure there are a lot of interesting emails on the HRC computers.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

HRC Fires Staffer Who Orchestrated Foley ScandalStatement Raises More Questions About HRC’s Involvement

(see below)

Welcome to readers from Instapundit, Corner, Wizbang, Polipundit and The Anchoress.

This is a stunning development in efforts to peel back the onion of the Mark Foley scandal and expose who knew what and when they knew it.

I have been flying back to Charlotte for most of the day, so I have been unable to “elevate” the comment by Brad Luna of the Human Rights Campaign to a full posting.  I emailed Brad last evening asking the HRC to respond to Dan’s posting challenging Joe Solmonese to respond to the accusations that the entire Foley affairs orginated at the Human Rights Campaign.

“The email exchanges in question between former Congressman Mark Foley and a House page have been in the possession of bloggers and media outlets for some time now. Yesterday, it came to our attention that an HRC employee, hired just last month to work for us in Michigan, was responsible for initially posting these emails on his blog. We investigated the matter, determined that HRC resources had been inappropriately used, and let him go. No one at the Human Rights Campaign, other than this individual, had any knowledge of his activities,” said Brad Luna, Spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign.

Luna’s statement was also emailed to the blogger of “Stop October Surprises” who is the first to connect the dots linking the Human Rights Campaign to the bogus blog “Stop Sex Predators”.  SSP, you will recall, was the blog set up to leak out the details of the Foley connected the dots.  We now know that a former employee at HRC was behind the entire affair. 

I have repeatedly highlighted the HRC’s involvement in the Foley affair from the start.  Many of you dismissed it.  But the HRC has finally admitted it.

So my questions now are the following:

  • What is the name of the fired HRC employee? 
  • When did the HRC employee come into possession of the Mark Foley emails?
  • Why did he hold them until October, instead of going to the proper authorities immediately if he truly wanted to expose a potential sex predator?
  • What did the officials at HRC know about the Foley matter before today?
  • What connections might the fired HRC employee have with the two-year old “outing” campaign targeting gay Congressional staff?
  • Were other HRC employees involved in this conspiracy?
  • Does this former HRC employee have any connections to Democrat Party officials?

Finally, it is worth noting that one of the central figures in the Foley affair is also a Board of Directors member of the Human Rights CampaignJeff Trandahl, the former Clerk of the House.

I think the HRC needs to come clean and fully explain to those of you who give them money exactly what the hell they are up to.  This entire matter has put every gay American into a bad light by equating child predators with being gay.  The HRC has a responsibility to tell us what they know and when they knew it.  They are now directly responsible for the anti-gay atmosphere that has emerged from the scandal that one of their own employees helped launch.

**UPDATE** — The New York Times has picked up the story.

A liberal gay rights group said Wednesday that one of its employees, acting anonymously, had created the Web site that first published copies of unusually solicitous e-mail messages to teenagers from former Representative Mark Foley, which led to his resignation.

A spokesman for the group, the Human Rights Campaign, said it first learned of its employee’s role this week and immediately fired him for misusing the group’s resources. The scandal surrounding Mr. Foley, a Florida Republican, has been a burdensome distraction for members of his party in the month before the midterm elections, and some Republicans have speculated that the e-mail messages were planted by a Democrat.

The rights campaign’s spokesman, David Smith, said the employee, whose name he declined to disclose, was a junior staff member hired last month to help mobilize the organization’s members in Michigan. “The minute we learned about it we took decisive action,” Mr. Smith said.

The Miami Herald and other news organizations have acknowledged obtaining copies of the same e-mail messages months ago but declining to publish them because of their potentially ambiguous contents.

Ummm.. I thought the Hypocrite Rights Campaign was “bi-partisan”?  (LMAO).  And, thank goodness for the bloggers who alerted the HRC this week about their rogue employee doing all of these things mysteriously with no knowledge of the HRC hierarchy, according to them.  (Yours truly was one of the bloggers who put the HRC’s feet to the fire, thanks to Dan’s post.)

Finally, wthere is smoke there is fire…. keep watching the truth come out over at StopOctoberSurprises!  That’s where this HRC bottom-feeding was uncovered.

This is the HRC’s version of Rathergate.  Let’s see how the largest gay rights group in America handles their worst scandal.   Many deep pockets will be watching.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

GayPatriot Calls on Log Cabin To Confront Human Rights Campaign

This is a reprint of an email that I sent last evening to Patrick Sammon, Executive VP at Log Cabin Republicans (and Man In Charge there right now)….


It would be nice — just for a change, and perhaps to humor me — that the organization that supposedly represents me as a gay Republican would forcefully take on the Human Rights Campaign for their disgusting role in the Congressional scandal that has created such a bad environment for gay Americans.

First, there are undisputed HRC ties to the attempts to forcibly “out” gay Republicans on Capitol Hill. (

And now there is clear evidence that someone at HRC was sitting on the Mark Foley emails and potentially putting children at risk just for political gain.


Please help Log Cabin finally grow a backbone and stand up against the slimy anti-American political tactics of the Gay Left! This is your Sister Soulja moment, Patrick!

Log Cabin Republicans cannot stay loyal to the HRC when they are clearly stabbing their own membership in the back for the sin of merely having differing political and moral beliefs than the HRC board.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Solmonese Must Address Evidence HRC is Behind Bogus Blog

Since Joe Solmonese was appointed executive director of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) last year, we have been critical of his selection and of his leadership. He came from EMILY’s List, a partisan Democratic organization. At HRC, he has been quick to criticize the Bush Administration & the GOP and eager to ally himself with left-wing groups*, many of which have partisan Democratic agendae, few of which are active in promoting pro-gay policies.

HRC’s very selection process ensured that the organization’s new leader would be a Democratic partisan. In the aftermath of an election in which approximately one in four gay and lesbian Americans voted to reelect a Republican president, HRC included only one Republican on its 24-member committee to pick its new leader. And that ostensible Republican only gave money to Democratic candidates.

Under Solmonese’s leadership, the group removed the word “bipartisan” from its Mission Statement and removed a press release entitled, “Alito’s Gay Support Raises Hope.” While the release still shows up when one searches HRC’s web-site for Alito, when you click on the title of that press release you get this message: “HTTP/1.1 404 Object Not Found.”

Despite evidence that the President’s then-nominee for the Supreme Court, current Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr, was broad-minded on gay issues, HRC, likely removed its favorable release when they joined a chorus of liberal groups opposing his confirmation. His pro-gay statements and attitudes mattered less to this gay rights’ organization than his conservative judicial philosophy. (I have a copy of the release in my files.)

And now one blogger has uncovered evidence that suggests HRC may be behind a web-site,, that attempted to capitalize on the Foley scandal. On Saturday, reader Brit noted a link in Ace’s blog to a new blog Stop October Surprises which traced the anti-Foley blog to HRC.

Despite Joe Solmonese’s liberal record, there is no evidence linking him to the blog. Still, there is some pretty substantial evidence suggesting that HRC’s employees have been involved in a dirty political campaign designed to hurt the GOP. Many on the gay left are up in arms that closeted gay people are working for conservative Republicans. Now, it seems that some on the gay left are behind a closet attempt to hurt the GOP. And so far, gay organizations have been silent.

As head of HRC, Joe Solmonese must order an immediate investigation to find who was using its ISP on behalf of the bogus blog. If it turns out they were employees of his organization, he must fire them.

HRC has every right to pursue a left-wing agenda. But, it should refrain from such underhanded political tricks. That is why Joe Solmonese needs to address the evidence that someone is using his group’s ISP to set up a bogus blog. He needs to make clear that he disapproves of such underhanded tactics, even when they’re used against his political adversaries.

– B. Daniel Blatt (

* via The Malcontent‘s Robbie.

Pink Purge? What Pink Purge?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:01 pm - October 23, 2006.
Filed under: FoleyGate,Gay Politics,Media Bias

One of the most amusing things about the aftermath of the Foley affair is the number of leftists, Democratic activists, MSM reporters and pundits and other Bush-haters speculating about what this means for the GOP. I mean, you’ve got people who have never attended a Republican meeting, who don’t spend much time with rank-and-file Republicans, who only know about the GOP from what they’ve seen in the media, trying to explain the party’s attitude toward gays.

And while outside of various urban and coastal areas, the GOP has not exactly embraced gay people with open arms, except in a few jurisdictions scattered across the country, various GOP committees and auxiliaries haven’t been rejecting us either. It seems that, by and large, most Republicans are willing to accept gay people into their organizations, but are unwilling to support gay marriage and, in some cases, wish we weren’t so open about our sexuality.

Last Wednesday, Johanna Neuman headlined her piece in the Los Angeles Times, “Some Seek ‘Pink Purge’ in the GOP.” Only it seems the “some” in her title refers not to Republicans, but to enemies of the GOP. She quotes one such enemy as seeing a “huge schism on the right,” leading a conservative pundit to ask “Isn’t it a bit unwise to use an enemy to the GOP as a source for about what is going on IN the GOP?

And despite what the MSM has said about social conservatives, even the most anti-gay among them “deny they are interested in removing gay staffers from the party.” Their concern is more where an elected official stands on their issues.

To be sure, things are not ideal for gay Republicans. The gay Republican staffers whom Ms. Neuman contacted for her article would not “speak for the record.” While we still have a ways to go with our own party, the GOP is hardly the anti-gay institution as defined by its enemies on the gay left — and their allies in the MSM. More often than not, they paint a picture of party that does reflect the party as it is, but as they have perceived it in their imagination.

While there’s no pink purge going in the GOP, there are still many places where gay Republicans cannot be all that open about their sexuality. For my part, I’m eager to work with the new leader of Log Cabin to address that problem, not through confrontation, but through gentle suasion.

– B. Daniel Blatt (

Individualism of Right Preferable to Left’s Ideology of Gay Identity

When I was coming out as a gay man in the early 1990s, I searched in vain for books which could help me deal with my difference. With the possible exception of Andrew Tobias’ (then published under the alias John Reid) The Best Little Boy in the World, I didn’t find a single book where the ideas or anecdotes corresponded to my ideas, my feelings or even my hopes. To be sure, there were a few novels I read and enjoyed, but too many included some notion of a gay consciousness, sense of some sort of abstract group identity, defined by the community rather than individual gay men and women.

That is, until 1993, when I discovered Bruce Bawer’s A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society. That wonderful book comes to mind today primarily because of its subtitle–the Gay Individual in American society. The other books developed an abstract notion of gay identity, based on the sociopolitical values of the gay community. As if merely by coming out, we abandon the values and ideas of those around us.

Given the focus on a community identity, it’s no wonder that so many gay activists — and their allies on the left — have difficulty grasping the notion of a gay conservative. So, so many on the left show so little sympathy for the lives of those individual gay men and women whom they would out to advance their partisan agenda.

Not only do they lack sympathy for these individuals, but it seems that some of those involved in the “outing” campaign want to punish them for not being “good homosexuals,” that is, by not adopting the party line on what it means to be gay. It almost seems that they want us to suffer. And their notion of coming out is not to promote the well-being of the individual gay man or lesbian, but so that her or she can become part of an interest group which promotes a left-wing agenda and works to elect Democrats to office.

They see us not as gay individuals, but as members of yet another interest group advancing the left-wing cause. No wonder they treat us as apostates.

While many of the leaders of the gay movement see themselves as part of a broad “progressive” force to change society, gay conservatives know that the modern American conservatism developed in opposition to the growth of the secular state. At least since Barry Goldwater, their focus has been on freedom, the right of the individual to live his life as he sees fit. Individualism has been at the core of American conservatism since its very early days. For example, in the 1960s, at the dawn of the American conservative movement, Chicago students called their quarterly journal the New Individualist Review.

It is this no wonder as Bruce noted yesterday that American conservatives are sticking up for Gays. They respect the privacy of gay Republicans, not necessary because we’re gay or Republican, but because we’re individual citizens. They may not agree some of our choices, but they respect our right to make them.

And that is really the difference between contemporary American conservatism and the ideology that defines the American left. Most of those on the right see us as individuals who should be left to live our lives as we see fit. While too many of those on the left see us as members of a group who should have the attitudes they deem appropriate to that group.

They may claim that they are for gay people and promote legislation which is supposed to advance our cause, yet when it comes to individual dealings with particular homosexuals, too many of them are no different that their social conservative adversaries — for they have a fixed notion of what it means to be gay. And that is why, in most debates, I side with the conservatives for as has been made manifest in numerous blog posts and even Op-Eds, the thinkers on the right, the true heirs of Abraham Lincoln, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan nor interested in bashing gays or even in using the state to advance their interests, but in treating us as individuals and letting us alone to live freely as individual Americans.

Since George Washington, the rallying cry of Americans has been liberty, freedom. And that freedom extends to gay people, whether they’re conservative or liberal, even if they want to live in the closet. We may not agree with their choice, but we support their right to make it. It’s their lives we’re talking about, not ours.

It’s time for gay leftists to stop being such nosy busybodies and learn to appreciate the diversity of our community. And take the time to understand why some gay people may not share their political ideology.

– B. Daniel Blatt (

Conservatives Continue to Stick Up For American Gays

I find one element in our post-Foley world very encouraging.  In this atmosphere of Radical Gay Liberals hunting down gays and rooting them out of public service, it is conservatives sticking up for gay people and their privacy. 

And while the Gay Leftists continue to pursue a “mutual assured destruction” campaign against gay people our national gay groups are silent.  Our “gay leaders” are also allowing the nutty gay fringe to be the face of the gay community in the national media.  One exception — Patrick Sammon from Log Cabin on Larry King Live last night (which I was unable to watch).

First example…. Dean Barnett at Hugh — “Who’s Really Being Outed?”.

More interesting is what this line of attack tells us about the left’s beliefs regarding the right. The left strongly believes that conservatives detest homosexuals and will be disgusted by the presence of a Lavender Mafia in the GOP tent. I can understand how they would reach this conclusion – certain chronic right wing embarrassments like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have historically fed such a notion.

But if those on the left actually knew more practicing Christians, they would know that the stuff about condemning the sin but loving the sinner isn’t mere lip service. If the members of the left actually knew the people that they so casually and easily defame, they would also understand that infinite forgiveness is a hallmark of America’s Christian community.

In short, this entire offensive rests on notions hatched in the left wing echo chamber without any dissenting voices available to disabuse the strategists of the their faulty assumptions. If the left actually took the time to understand the dynamics of the community they so loathe, they would know that professional Outing Scumbag Mike Rogers will inspire the Republican base, not the opposite.

BUT MOST DAMNING OF THE LEFT is the casual assumption of group-think that this exercise demonstrates. The logic is that if you’re gay, you must therefore support gay marriage. What’s more, you must support everything that someone like Glenn Greenwald supports. To do otherwise evidences self-hatred and a betrayal of the cause.

(read the WHOLE thing!)

And this from Eric at Classical Values — “Which Party Persecutes More Homosexuals?”

In what will go down as one of history’s great ironies, in enlightened, modern America, there are still people engaged in exposing and persecuting homosexuals working in the government or in important positions, and they are activists in the Democratic Party. (Michael Rogers and John Aravosis are two notorious, longtime practitioners, and the latter was recently invited to lunch with Bill Clinton.)

The difference is that the Democrats doing the persecution today can’t fire gay Republicans directly; instead they are tracking them down and exposing them in the hope that the Republicans will be bigoted enough to fire them. Unfortunately, this has failed. Even Rick Santorum, supposedly the worst gay basher of the lot, refused to fire his gay aide after the man was outed.

What this has created is a huge (if ironic) double standard between the parties. Gay Democrats have a right to their privacy, but gay Republicans are hounded and live in fear of the new (Democratic) sexual McCarthyism.

The reason they are made to live in fear while their Democrat counterparts are not is because gay Republicans are said to be self hating hypocrites. According to this argument, because the Republican Party does not support same sex marriage, any gay Republican is by definition betraying himself — even if he disagrees with the Republican Party on that issue. For that, it is fair to invade his privacy and make his identity and sexuality known to the world, in the hope that he’ll be fired by bigoted Republicans.

Yet the outed Republicans are not being fired. Their only persecutors are on the left. And they’re redoubling their efforts in order to combat more “hypocrisy.”

I’m not saying that the Republican Party is free of bigotry, because it isn’t. But if the activists keep this stuff up and ordinary voters find out about it (I’m not sure whether they have) pretty soon someone’s going to ask which party has more bigots.

This awesome salvo from Captain Ed — The Left Hates Gays?

These kind of slimy allegations have no way to be proven or disproven, leaving Craig with limited options to clear the air. How does one disprove a sexual orientation? He has three children with his wife Suzanne, and nine grandchildren. That seems to be proof that he has a heterosexual orientation, but Rogers and the scandal brigade will argue that Craig’s just in denial. It’s a no-win argument, and its use of anonymous sourcing is especially egregious and despicable. Rogers wants to ruin Craig politically, and yet he doesn’t produce a single source for his allegations to go on the record.

Once again, the Left shows its obsession with sexuality, but it’s really more than that. The Left obsesses over identity politics in all forms, and that obsession comes out in pathological terms. Rogers reveals this in his blog post, demanding that gay staffers on the Hill identify their orientation publicly, or else he will do it for them. Sexual identity is everything to him, and the concept of sexual privacy has no value to him at all. He wants to humiliate gays who prefer to keep their sexual activity private, forcing them to wear the virtual pink triangle against their will to experience obloquy and castigation.

However, the obloquy and castigation seems to only come from Rogers and his ilk. I couldn’t care less whether Craig is attracted to men or women; it’s really none of my business, and none of Rogers’ either. As long as he’s not importuning minors, then it makes no difference to anyone except Craig and his family, and that’s if the allegations have any basis in fact. The only time it becomes a public issue is if Craig insisted on an official government status of a same-gender relationship, which as a policy issue should be decided by the people. Most conservatives, moderates, and liberals share the same conviction that sexual orientation is a private matter. Only extremists like Rogers allow themselves to get worked up over it.

The only bigot who should be ashamed of himself is Rogers. And if he’s a libeler, he better get himself a damned good lawyer.

And finally, in one of the best written blog pieces I’ve seen in a while…. the incredible satirical “It’s the Homos, Stupid” — a letter from Howard Dean (in the form of IowaHawk) to the Conservative-American Community.

[T]his is just the tip of the GOP gayberg. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the mincing minnie who ran the GOP’s Foley coverup? A former high school “wrestling coach.” California governor Arnold Schwartzenegger? A curious fondness for flexing his oiled pecs while parading around in a pair of skimpy Speedos. “Dick Armey”? You do the math.

And if their rampant homoism weren’t enough, the GOP has further betrayed traditional conservatives by secretly nominating negros in races across the country. Yes, you read that correctly: actual negros. No matter how many times they try to hide the genetic truth from conservatives like you, GOP nominees like Michael Steele, Lynn Swann and Ken Blackwell are black as the ace of spades. Imagine the devastating impact on US property values if the world learns that more of those types have moved into the Congressional neighborhood.

Are these Republican negros also gay? It is too early to say definitively, but much more will be revealed in the upcoming weeks. Our research teams are busy still digging up evidence, but what we’ve learned already should be enough to destroy whatever shred of faith you have left in the Gay Old Party. I have, in my hand, a list of of over 200 GOP insiders suspected of sodomy, locker room towel-snapping, dancing with fat girls, and open negroism. As Christians like you, we would rather persuade them to forfeit their election campaigns peacefully, but if necessary we promise to get the charges out in time for your November 5 Sunday sermons.

Are you fed up with the GOP’s miscegenation and gay bathhouse shenanigans? I know we’ve had our differences in the past, but maybe it’s time for conservatives like you to give Democrats a fresh new look. The Republicans like to talk about having a “big tent,” but we at the DNC are actually taking concrete steps to bring conservatives back in the fold. Just look at our innovative Iraq quagmire withdrawal plan, which has earned the praise and endorsement of rock-ribbed, traditional American conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Fred Phelps, and David Duke.

Like us, these no-nonsense mainstream conservatives know it’s time to bring US troops home where they belong, protecting our children from the clutches of the Republican congressional gay negro NAMBLA mafia. With our troops safely back, the people of Iraq can then begin building a faith-based society emphasizing the same traditional values that motivate conservatives like you: women at home, prayer in school, capital punishment for homos.

I am very proud of the excellent work by the conservative blogosphere by standing up for gay Americans while our own gay community turns on itself in a feeding frenzy.  I’d like to think our voices have had some impact in how conservative bloggers view gay issues and how their perceptions may have changed over the past two years.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Clarifying my Quote in the Times of London

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:41 pm - October 19, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging,FoleyGate,Gay America,New Media

I learned last night that I was quoted in a Times of London piece on the aftermath of the Foley sex scandal. In reading my words as reported I see once again the benefits of blogging.

You see, I’m not entirely sure the reporter reproduced the words precisely as I spoke them. Though he may have. According to the article, I said:

It’s harder to be a gay Republican in gay circles than it is to be a gay in Republican circles — gay activists are the most intolerant SOBs I’ve ever come across.

Had I read those words in the first draft of a blog post, I would have amended the second part of the sentence to read: “some gay activists are the most intolerant SOBs I’ve ever come across.” While I have encountered many intolerant gay activists, I have encountered many broad-minded ones as well, even some on the far left.

I write this post because I do not want what appears to have been a hasty comment to define my attitude toward all gay activists.

As a blogger, when I write in haste, I can quickly change the text if I realize I left out a word or two (or included a few words too many).

I don’t doubt that reporter Tom Baldwin reproduced the words as he heard me speak them. I e-mailed him and learned that he took notes via short-hand and did not tape record them. So, he may have made an error in transcription — or I may have spoken in haste.

Let me conclude by making clear that while some gay activists are indeed quite intolerant, others are not. And I need to learn to be more careful with what I say to reporters. Unlike writing on this blog, when I speak to them, it is more difficult to change what I have to say after I have said it.

– B. Daniel Blatt (

Priest Admits Relationship with Foley

Well, it appears that Mark Foley wasn’t making things up. “A Roman Catholic priest said he had an inappropriate two-year relationship with” the former Congressman “in the 1960s that included massaging the boy in the nude, but he did not specifically remember having sex.”

While this certainly helps explain Foley’s fascination with teenage boys, it doesn’t excuse his behavior. Indeed, David Roth, his attorney said as much “Mark does not blame the trauma he sustained as a young adolescent for his totally inappropriate [actions]. He continues to offer no excuse whatsoever for his conduct.

If Foley were a Democrat, you can be sure that many of those now demonizing him would show more compassion for his present woes, given his adolescent trauma. But, for political reasons, they apply a different standard to him because of that (R) after his name. It’s too bad they’re so partisan; they should hold all people to the same standard.

To be sure, Mark Foley was, as an adolescent, the “victim” of an irresponsible adult supervising him. But that past trauma does not excuse his adult behavior. It’s a good sign his lawyer recognizes as much. Now, let’s hope that gay activists and left-wing pundits come to similar conclusions should a Democrat do what Foley has done — or worse.

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.

US Rep. Jim Kolbe New Target Of Witchhunt Against Gay GOP’ers

This is absolutely ridiculous. 

Clearly now it is inappropriate to be a Congressman who happens to be gay who also happens to be in the company of anyone else of the same sex.  Well, that is the result of the “shock and awe” campaign by Gay Liberals to “out” gay Republicans.  Now the victim is US Rep. Jim Kolbe.

Federal prosecutors in Arizona have opened a preliminary investigation of a camping trip Congressman Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., took 10 years ago that included two teenage congressional pages, a Justice Department spokesman told NBC News.

A spokesman for the Justice Department in Washington said that the U.S. attorney in Arizona has started a “preliminary assessment” of the trip, after an unidentified source made allegations about the congressman’s behavior on the expedition.  (GP Ed. Note – I’m sure we will never know that source’s political leanings…. but I can make a safe bet.)

NBC News interviewed several people who were on the trip, and their accounts vary. One participant, who requested anonymity, said he was uncomfortable with the attention Kolbe paid to one of the former pages. He was “creeped out by it,” he said, adding that there was a lot of “fawning, petting and touching” on the teenager’s arms, shoulders and back by Kolbe.

However, Gary Cummins, the deputy superintendent of the Grand Canyon National Park at the time — and who also was on the trip —  said he did not see anything inappropriate take place.

NBC also interviewed the two former pages, who are now in their late 20s. One of them said that Kolbe was a gentleman and never acted in an improper fashion. He recalled that the pair spent time in Kolbe’s house at one point — and briefly were alone with him on the trip — and that Kolbe always acted professionally and decently.

The other would not comment on Kolbe’s behavior during the trip or characterize it in any way.

“I don’t want to get into the details,” he said. “I just don’t want to get into this… because I might possibly be considered for a job in the administration.”

However, the former page — who is the one to whom Kolbe allegedly paid special attention — said he had a “blast” on the trip and did not report anything improper to this parents or any House officials after the trip. He said he has a favorable impression of the page program to this day and likes Kolbe.

So now “anonymous sources” are enough to have scurrilous accounts develop into Nightly News-leading stories?  Good God.

Why do I think this is designed to breathe new life into the Foley scandal as it has begun to recede?  Thanks to the Gay Liberals’ own hatred, gays are now the target of any slight level of innuendo and scorn.

Brilliant move.  (/sarcasm off)

I wonder what the Hypocrite Rights Campaign has to say about this?  Or were they the ones that called NBC in the first place.

**UPDATE**AJ Strata at The Strata-Sphere wonders why the Democrats and MSM were okay with it when Gay Scoutmasters were on camping trips with boys, but are upset when a Gay Republican Congressman does the same.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

GOP to Hang On By Skin of Its Teeth This Fall?

Had you asked me two weeks ago what party would control Congress after next month’s elections, I would have said the GOP, pointing to polling data showing a shift toward my party as well as signs of a significant uptick in GOP fundraising. And then came Mark Foley’s disgrace.

While Democrats do not have a “smoking gun” showing that any member of the House leadership knew of the sexually explicit nature of then-Rep. Mark Foley’s Internet communications with pages (until the date he resigned), this scandal has tarred the GOP (at least temporarily). While there is, as of yet, no evidence that any ranking Republican did anything wrong, the appearance of impropriety could well damage the party’s prospects.

It has yet to be seen how much this “scandal” will damage the GOP. Given how much the Democrats and MSM bring it up, they seem certain that it is the ticket to voting Republicans out. Yet, if they Democrats see this as their “ace in the hole” much as the GOP saw then-President Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky as the ticket to victory back in 1998, they’ll be in for a big surprise come November 7, just as Republicans were in for a big surprise eight years ago.

If, however, the Democrats manage to come up with a positive message for the last stretch of the campaign, they may well succeed in convincing voters that they will better be able to lead than the GOP. But, while it seems that recent events have painted a rather unflattering picture of the GOP, the Democrats haven’t done much to improve their own image.

Two weeks ago, if I were a betting man, I’d have bet on the GOP to hold both Houses. Last week, I would have bet on the Democrats picking up at least one house. This week, I just wouldn’t bet because I don’t know.

Whether or not the GOP holds Congress will depend on a number of things, including how good a campaign they run in the next three weeks, how successful they are at Get Out the Vote (GOTV) and finally whether or not last-minute voters break their way. We know that the GOP has a better (GOTV) operation than the Democrats. But that alone will not be alone to hold their majorities.

We may soon see if any trends develop toward the GOP — or away from it — as the election approaches. I am still inclined to think that this election will resemble one held fourteen years ago. Mo, not the American election which brought Bill Clinton to power, but the British election which kept John Major’s Tories in power. There, while Neil Kinnock’s Labour Party had been leading in the polls, as I noted four months ago, “voters deciding at the last minute opted for the incumbent party, not confident that the Kinnock, from Labour’s left wing, could pull the UK out of its then-lingering recession.”

Without a recession — and with an ever strengthening economy — the GOP is in much better shape than was Britain’s victorious Tory Party in 1992. And given the Democrats’ failure to put forward a message beyond saying “We’re not George W. Bush,” I’d say my party could still hang out this fall, but, just like John Major’s Tories, by the skin of our teeth.


Conservative Bloggers Uniting to Oppose Outing Witchhunt By Liberals

So far, The AnchoressThe American ThinkerMacsMindGatewayPundit …. Roger L. Simon…. Mary Katharine Ham…. and now Liz at GOP Progress have joined GayPatriot in condeming the “outing” campaign by Liberal activists targeting gay GOP Congressional staffers.  (There are actually many, many more who have stated their opposition!)

I haven’t seen ANY liberal bloggers opposing this outing campaign.  Not one.  In fact, they are behind the attempts to rout out these staffers with their Sexual McCarthyism.  Can you just imagine the howls from the Left if “The List” was compiled by James Dobson and being used against gay Democrats?

Hypocrisy, thy face is of an American Liberal.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)