More Foley Fallout: The Gay GOP Witchhunt Begins
**UPDATE BELOW** Welcome readers from Instapundit, The Corner and Mary Katharine Ham!
From liberal blogger David Corn (of The Nation and “outing Valerie Plame” fame) comes this disturbing development in the Foley saga.
There’s a list going around. Those disseminating it call it “The List.” It’s a roster of top-level Republican congressional aides who are gay.
On CBS News on Tuesday, correspondent Gloria Borger reported that there’s anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called a “network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice.” The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List–drawn up by gay politicos–is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network.
I have a copy. I’m not going to publish it. For one, I don’t know for a fact that the men on the list are gay. And generally I don’t fancy outing people–though I have not objected when others have outed gay Republicans, who, after all, work for a party that tries to limit the rights of gays and lesbians and that welcomes the support of those who demonize same-sexers.
What’s interesting about The List–which includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications–is that (if it’s accurate) it shows that some of the religious right’s favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas. These include Representative Katherine Harris and Henry Hyde and Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell and Rick Santorum. Should we salute these legislators for being open-minded enough to have such tolerant hiring practices? After all, Santorum in a 2003 AP interview compared homosexuality to bestiality, incest and polygamy. It would be rather big of Santorum to employ a fellow who engages in activity akin to such horrors. That is, if Santorum knows about his orientation.
Let’s be clear about one thing: the Mark Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is. (GP Ed. Note - So are most Liberal Chestbeaters…. calling Bob Beckel!)
But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets–even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen? The men on The List might want to think hard about these questions–as they probably already have–for if I have a copy of The List, there’s a good chance it will be appearing soon on a website near everyone.
Full citizen? No party has the power or right to tell me I am a full citizen. Supporting or opposing gay marriage does not make you a hypocrite. It makes you question the policy on its face. I am a full citizen thanks to the US Constitution.
Did it ever occur to Mr. Corn that the representatives and Senators he mentions that may or may not have gay staffers do not care about their sexual orientation yet value their participation as public servants? Is it not rational that you can hire a gay staffer, but at the same time oppose PUBLIC POLICY POSITIONS that you are morally or philosophically opposed to without being labeled a homophobe?
Perhaps Mr. Corn is ignoring the fact that most gay conservatives identify more strongly in our American Identity than our Gay Identity. Did that ever cross your mind, Mr. Corn? Probably not since you seem to have had no problem outing a CIA agent and then letting others take the fall for your actions.
I am not surprised that this is where we are headed. But my question is…. why have our national gay organizations (HRC, Log Cabin, NGLTF) not stepped in to stop this witchhunt which originated on the Gay Left in the first place? I think we know the answer. Tolerance and diversity of opinion is a one-way street for the Gay Liberals and their masters in the Democrat Party.
By the way, the only people that are advancing or talking “The List” that I’ve seen are Liberals! And that List was begun by Gay Leftists years ago.
This witchhunt has got to stop.
**UPDATE** The first casualty of the Gay GOP Witchhunt has occurred. Forced out by Democrats politicizing the Foley Affair. Statement by Kirk Fordham, Rep. Reynolds Chief of Staff…
“I have resigned today from Congressman Tom Reynolds’ office. It is clear the Democrats are intent on making me a political issue in my boss’s race, and I will not let them do so.
I want to clarify a few things: When I sought to help Congressman Foley and his family when his shocking secrets were being revealed, I did so as a friend of my former boss, not as Congressman Reynolds’ Chief of Staff. I reached out to the Foley family, as any good friend would, because I was worried about their emotional well-being.
At the same time, I want it to be perfectly clear that I never attempted to prevent any inquiries or investigation of Foley’s conduct by House officials or any other authorities.
Like so many, I feel betrayed by Mark Foley’s indefensible behavior. Again, I will not allow the Democrats to make me a political issue in my boss’s race, and I will fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation.”
Where will it end?
[RELATED STORY - Ace Of Spades sees the dawning of liberal "conversion camps" for those pesky gay conservatives who have slipped off the plantation.]
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UP-UPDATE (from GPW): The Malcontent’s Robbie had a good followup post and describes it as Torquemada Ascendant. Just read the whole thing!
Bruce, nice attempt to smear progressives but what part of the following don’t you get:
“there’s anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called a “network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice.”
It’s your own House repubs who have the long knives out for gay Republican staffers.
“This witchhunt has got to stop.”
Tell that to your GOP leaders. I’m sure they’ll listen to you.
Comment by Ian — October 4, 2006 @ 3:40 pm - October 4, 2006
Wrong Ian. “The List” was created by progressives over the course of the past several years.
Read Corn’s posting very closely. He never says REPUBLICANS are using the List, does he?
His posting clearly states the List was drawn up by “gay politicos”. What gay politico (aka - operative) do you know that is a Republican?
Get a grip.
Comment by GayPatriot — October 4, 2006 @ 3:45 pm - October 4, 2006
Bruce, I think just a couple of points are missed. Then again, it could simply have to do with point of view.
Now, I am a Democrat, but I won’t GOP-bash. I think each party has certain ideals that resonnate with each of us on a personal level, thus our political affiliations.
The text, I interpreted to mean that gays and lesbians are full citizens, but are not treated like full citizens by GOP members who oppose gay rights. I think a more accurate statement would be any person who is opposed to gay rights issues will treat members of the community per their own personal beliefs.
If we’re all human beings, why must we compartmentalize parts of ourselves? Why must a person have an American identity and a gay identity? Aren’t those two aspects of the same person? I would think that one’s experiences based on who one is have a profound affect on one’s American experience.
I would think a Senator would value an openly gay staffer’s input because there is a unique point of view. I think one’s orientation does matter because it’s a unique part of a person’s being. It’s not all of who one is, but…Isn’t the whole only as good as the sum of its parts?
Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - October 4, 2006
Message from a ‘Values Voter’…
Wednesday, October 4: The “witch” hunt is on. No comment.
Update (10/3): Dennis Hastert is digging in. By the way, don’t be surprised by the depravity of this scandal. Man is capable of much, much worse.
(Note: You may read and d…
Trackback by La Shawn Barber's Corner — October 4, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - October 4, 2006
Aw, c’mon. You may have noticed that other than a comment here or there, the Democrats aren’t the ones who are pushing this Foley affair farther along… to blame them for Fordham’s resignation is ridiculous. He ‘resigned’ because he was caught up in the middle of a major sexual scandal, and he belongs to the party which consistently touts their moral superiority as a primary reason that voters should keep them in office.
There will be more on the way out, I suppose you will blame that on Democrats as well….
Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 4, 2006 @ 3:56 pm - October 4, 2006
Gay groups are no more interested in obstructing the persecution of Foley than ‘Feminist’ groups are of improving women’s rights in Islamic countries, or giving America credit for improving the condition of women in Afghanistan.
Here is more on the true agenda of the fifth-column left.
Comment by Twok — October 4, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - October 4, 2006
James-
Exactly who is given the authority and what topics define “gay rights“?????
I feel no different as a gay man growing up to be successful in America than if I were straight, frankly.
Just because the Congress (under BOTH Democrat rule for 40 years and GOP rule for 12) haven’t passed legislation on certain gay issues makes me NO LESS OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.
Opposing gay marriage on policy and/or personal moral grounds does NOT necessarily make you homophobic or warranting becoming part of a witchhunt.
Comment by GayPatriot — October 4, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - October 4, 2006
Excuse me???? Fordham a victim of the “Gay GOP Witchhunt?” NO…Fordham was axed for COVERING FOR A PEDOPHILE!!!
Comment by Michael — October 4, 2006 @ 3:59 pm - October 4, 2006
I have to say that “progressives” is a misnomer, particularly in this case. For a group of people that let this sort of thing slide in their own party, they sure want to burn people at the stake when it comes to Republicans.
And I find nothing “progressive” about a party that houses ex-members of the KKK (Byrd) or Senators that aren’t held accountable to deaths they caused (Kennedy).
They’re playing politics, pure and simple… and it really shows you were their “values” are.
Comment by deanj — October 4, 2006 @ 3:59 pm - October 4, 2006
David Corn is scum. This is pure and unadulterated liberal crap that says…”win at ANY cost”. Too bad Corn, along with his liberal friends, don’t exhibit the same commitment to fighting terrorism. I am not a paranoid conspiracy theorist but wow, something stinks real bad and I believe it is rotting corn.
Comment by Benj — October 4, 2006 @ 4:01 pm - October 4, 2006
Yes, it has to stop. I do, however, think it would be better if they simply came out voluntarily. Treating this like Hollywood, where people pretend they don’t know isn’t doing anyone any favors.
I would caution that what Rogers did to you is different from this. You were and are innocent. But if there are people covering this up that is a problem. I also don’t think it stops with gay GOPers. Hastert and the page board guy failed themselves. They didn’t need gay people to help them. And the GOP shouldn’t scapegoat gay GOPers if it will save Hastert and the rest.
Comment by Also from Michigan — October 4, 2006 @ 4:07 pm - October 4, 2006
Corn is portraying the issue as unnamed Republican staffers believing that there is some gay mafia conspiracy in the Republican Party that protected Foley, and that the Republican paranoids are basing their fears on a list of supposedly gay Republicans that gay leftists circulated. Obviously, such conspiracy theories presuppose that all gay Republicans knew about Foley’s sexual misconduct and actually took steps to further the misconduct. That’s a stretch to say the least.
So, supposing that there are lavender mafia conspiracy theories gripping the Republican Party on the Hill, that is indeed a horrible development, but I want more evidence of that than the whisperings of David Corn or Gloria Borger. And, furthermore, if such conspiracy theories have credibility, the gay left should not think that the conspiracy theories would scathe gay Republicans only and not gay Democrats or gay leftists. When gay leftists bait the bear, they should not be surprised when they are mauled once it escapes its cage.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 4, 2006 @ 4:08 pm - October 4, 2006
Geez, that’s not McCarthyite or anything, is it?
It’s a shame how the very same people who claim to respect and embrace homosexuality will also delight in using it to demonize their opponents. It’s also a shame they think that any homosexual who counts himself as a Republican should be demonized. It almost makes you wonder about the sincerity of their positions.
Comment by BR — October 4, 2006 @ 4:09 pm - October 4, 2006
I would like to see all of the gay aides, both Repubs and Dems, stand in unity on the front steps of the Capitol and say that what Foley did was wrong; and that REAL homosexual patriots that work in goverment DON’T engage in “skirt-chasing” after teenage boys!
They should also say that we ALL are tired of stereotypes portrayed by homophobic bigots within BOTH political camps that being gay and pedophilia goes hand-in-hand. It is because of anti-gay hatred that guys like Foley are able to prey upon those under them because perverts hide behind the rainbow of gay pride when they are caught and say to those judging them, “Hey! I do what I do because I was BORN like this!” or “I can’t help touching kids because I was ‘touched’ by a priest when I was one!”
I’m gay AND I am a incest survivor…and I have NEVER wanted to molest a child in my entire life! Pervs like Foley are trying to use the same tactic that MANY pedophiles in prison use to justify what they did to their victims. What Foley is doing is just plain WRONG! He is just trying to use the same “ploy” that McGreevey used when he was “outed”.
Foley has become the Republican version of George Michael: “I’m gay and this is my CULTURE! So (bleep) OFF!”
Comment by Jeffrey Williams — October 4, 2006 @ 4:12 pm - October 4, 2006
#5: “There will be more on the way out, I suppose you will blame that on Democrats as well….”
Of course he will! That’s exactly the approach being taken - Faux News has even gone so far as to identify Foley as a Democrat! It wasn’t just an innocent error since it happened several times.
Bruce and the rest of the GOP apologists will continue to ask you to suspend belief and accept the alternate “reality” that this is all the Dems’ fault. But the truth is clear: Foley has been doing his page thing for years, the “Foley Five” have known about it and done their best to keep it under wraps so they could hold onto a House seat - the wellbeing of the pages be damned. They even went so as to keep the Democrat on the Page Board in the dark about the whole thing.
Kirk Fordham’s pathetic attempt to blame the Dems is risible in light of the evidence that he tried to bribe the reporters into not making public the sexually-explicit IM’s. It’s looks very much like he’s been thrown under the bus http://tinyurl.com/zb9k5 and that’s by Repubs not Dems.
Comment by Ian — October 4, 2006 @ 4:15 pm - October 4, 2006
This episode sort of explains why conservatives are happier than leftists, eh? Leftists are driven only by the destruction of those who reject their ideology. They do nothing else whatsoever. When is the last time they actually talked about IMPROVING something?
Comment by Tudalu — October 4, 2006 @ 4:15 pm - October 4, 2006
Don’t you think the real difference is the base. When a Dem does something disgracful, the leaders and the base rally round and say hey he’s our guy and if anything they get promoted. When Republicans do bad things they leave, sometimes pushed out.Why? Because the Republican base wants this type stuff cleaned up. Lesson….You wanna be a creep, Clinton, Reynolds, Studds, Frank, Jefferson, be a Democrat. They get protected and keep their jobs.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 4, 2006 @ 4:19 pm - October 4, 2006
If the GOP staffers start getting outed and fired, I hope they retailiate by outing the closeted Democratic staffers and House/Senate members of BOTH parties…especially the closeted married-creeps with kids and a minivan with soccer stickers. Let’s get this all out in the open in one gigantic f**king Armageddon!!
As for the LCR, there has been no leadership since there are no leaders at LCR Natl; no national president, no political director, no field director, no communications director, nor even an exec. director to run the office and field the calls from the press. The LCR National Board has failed to fill any of the vacancies created in the last 18-months…..
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 4, 2006 @ 4:20 pm - October 4, 2006
I agree that what appears to be a brewing witchhunt against gay GOP Hill staffers is a terrible idea. First of all, it smacks of ruthlessness and overzealotry, which I thought liberals opposed when they observed it coming from Bush & Rove. Second, the quality of Hill intelligence that gay rights activists have come to take for granted would decrease significantly in the event of a mass gay purge on the Republican side of the aisle, because it would destroy the network of staffers who keep one another informed on legislative developments.
Comment by Richard J. Rosendall — October 4, 2006 @ 4:21 pm - October 4, 2006
It looks like Kirk Fordham claims that he warned Hastert about Foley’s behavior two years ago. If that claim pans out, then I don’t see how Hastert can survive as Speaker. Events are moving swiftly.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 4, 2006 @ 4:23 pm - October 4, 2006
To answer your question: it isn’t rational to be gay and support public policies that limit gay rights.
Comment by jpe — October 4, 2006 @ 4:25 pm - October 4, 2006
Hahahahahahaha….
A Republican ephebophile (who also happens to be gay) gets caught having internet sex with a teen on the House floor. The Republican leadership, including the head of the Page Committee are informed, and do nothing for months. In fact, they keep it secret from the one Democrat on the Page Committee. The Justice Department ignores it.
Then, when the story breaks, your family values advocates conflate a pathology with a sexual orientation…and you blame the “progressives” for reporting the scandal and making political hay with it.
Calling George Orwell! Calling George Orwell!
Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 4:29 pm - October 4, 2006
We can all agree that Foley’s behavior was unbecomAnd I thought black activists throwing Oreo cookies at blacks who happen hold conservative ideals was nasty.
We can all agree that Foley’s behavior was unbecoming a public servent, good that Foley resigned but I have to say that this attack by gay activists against Foley because was a Republican not having outed his gay is vicious. In another time gay activists would be screaming at the top of their lungs “16 is the age of the consent and it nobody’s business what a person does in their private lives!!!!!”
If a text message between a 16 year old male and a 50 year old male is this outrageous to gay activists then the gay community will no doubt be making some MAJOR lifestyle changes.
Does this mean the beltway cruise scene in Washington will be abruptly coming to an end?
Comment by syn — October 4, 2006 @ 4:33 pm - October 4, 2006
How can you even TRY to make Fordham a martyr?
Drudge has this guy working with Hassert and ABC to try and suppress the IM’s.
That is not the democrats, its this guy trying to keep hidden the sleaze of Foley by trying to work Hassart and ABC.
Once this got out, of course he resigns.
Comment by keogh — October 4, 2006 @ 4:33 pm - October 4, 2006
Bruce, nobody has be given the authority to define “gay rights.” Different individuals feel differently about some of the things LGBT persons seek (marriage recognition, domestic partner benefits, the ability to serve openly in the Armed Forces), and those feelings are attributable to a number of different factors.
How do you know if you feel any differently being a gay man who’s grown to be successful in America as opposed to being a straight one? I don’t meant to sound like a smart ass, but I’m curious to know your basis for comparison.
I apologize that I was not clearer before. I’m fully aware that we are all American citizens, and I acknowledge that Congress under both Democratic and Republican rule have failed to pass key pieces of legislation that would positively affect the community. My point was, however, that what one is and how one is treated are two different things, and affects one’s experience as an American.
There is not excuse for a witchhunt. However, if one looks at the suffix in the word “homophobe”…well, a person who opposes gay marriage based on policy or personal beliefs might not truly be gay hating, but what about gay fearing?
Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 4:35 pm - October 4, 2006
To those who say Republicans oppose homosexual rights- you have it wrong. They oppose special privileges and preferential treatment for any one group.
As for a Democrat campaign to out gay coonservatives- I’m not surprised. They claim to be pro-gay, but are not above the ‘gay smear’ if it means a chance to defeat a political opponent. John Kerry knew exactly what he was doing in that presidential debate when he ‘just happened to mention’ that Dick Cheney’s daughter is gay.
And finally, about the charge of homophobia in general. As a straight guy, I can tell you that most Americans understand that there are gay people in the world. We just wish you would stop shouting it from the rooftops and throwing it in our faces at every opportunity. Go live your life! Be gay! Just quit beating us over the head with your choice, is all we’re saying.
Comment by Barry — October 4, 2006 @ 4:35 pm - October 4, 2006
“be” in the first sentence above should read “been”.
Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - October 4, 2006
The Foley Scandal to Turn Into An Outing Campaign?…
I just asked someone on IM just now what he thinks the over-under is on when “The List” hits the Left blogs.
I blogged about this earlier today:
And, the liberal blogosphere may be itching to go all “Michael Rogers” on the GOP. You know, because….
Trackback by Mary Katharine Ham — October 4, 2006 @ 4:37 pm - October 4, 2006
Barry, being gay is not a choice. And while some gay activists do shout their orientation from the rooftops, many gays don’t. I think it might seem like people are being beat over the head with it because, for the first time in history, we demand acceptance rather than ridicule.
Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 4:38 pm - October 4, 2006
What does Fordham getting fired or quit have to do with GAY GOP witchunt?
He quit for protecting Foley.
At least be honest in your statements.
Comment by boston — October 4, 2006 @ 4:38 pm - October 4, 2006
I assure you, THIS is a typo:
coonservatives
sorry!
Comment by Barry — October 4, 2006 @ 4:39 pm - October 4, 2006
ABC News is reporting that Kirk Fordham, the same individual you try to cast here in a sympathetic light, tried to cut a deal with them in exchange for not publishing the transcripts of the IM conversations. ABC refused any such deal.
I wonder who’s idea that was?
Comment by Chase — October 4, 2006 @ 4:41 pm - October 4, 2006
“And while some gay activists do shout their orientation from the rooftops, many gays don’t…..for the first time in history, we demand acceptance rather than ridicule.”
Unless you’re a Republican. Then you’re irrational, your names goes on a list, and David Corn gets all giggly about outing you for the purposes of humiliation.
Comment by BR — October 4, 2006 @ 4:42 pm - October 4, 2006
I know people who are friends personally with Kirk and who, like myself, differ in their political views from Kirk, but who all agree that he is a genuinely nice guy. That said, I won’t bad mouth him for being gay and working for some of the people he has chosen to work for. That decision is his own to make and not for me to judge, even though I may not understand it.
What I do NOT agree with is his attempt to blame Democrats for his resignation. The only person he should be blaming for this is Mark Foley, for not only betraying his own office, but for betraying people he considered friends and colleagues.
As I’ve said before, if Democrats are pushing for an investigation into who knew and didn’t know and who tried to cover it up, that is fine, but if Democrats are also found guilty, they should be treated the same as Republicans who are. Politicize and finger point until you’re blue in the face, but when it comes to something so heinous as abusing one’s position in Congress like Foley did, anyone who allowed it should be thrown out on their asses in my humble, liberal opinion.
Comment by Britton — October 4, 2006 @ 4:44 pm - October 4, 2006
I don’t agree with outing at all, and I’m one of the liberal camp.
I do have one question: If there’s nothing wrong with being gay, why would being outed be humiliating?
It’s understood that due to career or relationships with family, not everyone can be out. Being out is a personal choice.
Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 4:48 pm - October 4, 2006
And as for the national gay rights advocacy organizations, don’t expect to hear much from them while this is all going on. They have no interest in throwing a life raft to the GOP. They are just going to stand by and watch the drama unfold.
Comment by Chase — October 4, 2006 @ 4:50 pm - October 4, 2006
Foley Setup? - Part V - Uncovering the Conspiracy…
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a political conspiracy unravel as fast as this one that involves former representative Mark Foley.
Let’s recap.
1. On September 29th Foley is approached by ABC NEWS about salacious Instant Messages with…
Trackback by Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense — October 4, 2006 @ 4:51 pm - October 4, 2006
GayPatriot -
I totally agree with you. As a gay man in a 14-year relationship, with a great job and a great house, I’m not feeling the oppression that some gay people are apparently feeling. It’s not like I have to worry about getting hanged or getting my head chopped off for being gay (although if Democrats have their way, I may have spoken too soon). Sure, some people may hate me just because I’m gay, but then, many gay people hate me just because I’m Republican. But I guess that’s the “good” kind of hate…
Cycloptichorn -
The Republicans do try to stand by their values, as evidenced by the fact that the perpetrators in this scandal actually resigned. Too bad the same couldn’t be said of Democrats Gerry Studds, President Clinton, Barney Frank.
Comment by Dave — October 4, 2006 @ 4:51 pm - October 4, 2006
[...] Well, this unraveled faster than I believed possible. The left has overplayed the Foley hand to the point that there is now a brewing anti-homosexual witch hunt. Aimed at Republican staffers who happen to be gay. Gay Patriot takes a wee bit of exception to the whole matter. Full citizen? No party has the power or right to tell me I am a full citizen. Supporting or opposing gay marriage does not make you a hypocrite. It makes you question the policy on its face. I am a full citizen thanks to the US Constitution. [...]
Pingback by Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » On The Jumping Of Sharks — October 4, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - October 4, 2006
That’s an excellent question. Frankly, I don’t get it either, and to me it only perpetuates the opinion that being gay is something to be ashamed of….an opinion that Democrats deride many on the right side of the political specturm for holding. To play into that hand for nothing but political gain is hardly admirable. But hey, it may yield some votes, right?
Comment by BR — October 4, 2006 @ 4:58 pm - October 4, 2006
I didn’t realize that Kirk Fordham was gay as someone said above. Because otherwise, GP’s claim that Kirk was victim of a gay witchhunt seems inexplicable. I don’t see this firing as evidence of a gay witchhunt as such, unless I am missing something.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 4, 2006 @ 4:58 pm - October 4, 2006
I might ask Corn:
What about those Democrats who are white-men and who serve a party that is anti-white-men? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals?
Comment by james — October 4, 2006 @ 5:06 pm - October 4, 2006
Dave-
There are two sets of perps, of course - those that committed the acts, and those who knew about it and didn’t do anything about it.
Perhaps part of the reason that Republicans seem to take more heat when they have ethical and moral problems… is because they continually trumpet their ethical and moral superiority as a major reason that people should vote for them over the Democrats.
Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 4, 2006 @ 5:06 pm - October 4, 2006
But the point is that they admitted wrongdoing, took responsibility and resigned.
Comment by Dave — October 4, 2006 @ 5:08 pm - October 4, 2006
“Kirk Fordham claims that he warned Hastert about Foley’s behavior two years ago. ”
God I hope this is true - I have no use for Hastert. I would hope that a former chief of staff for Rep. Foley, one who held the position for 10 years, would have taken steps to bring a halt to behavior that was at once pathetic and deplorable had he been aware of it.
Did Mr. Fordman also alert his current employer, Rep. Tom Reynolds? Doesn’t Tom Reynolds play a role in determining how the Republican party should focus its efforts in supporting candidates and incumbants in their runs for higher office? Couldn’t Rep. Foley been eased out of office?
If Kirk Fordman had known that Rep. Foley had a predilection for high school aged males and said nothing to those in a position to put an end to it, I would view him as an enabler.
Comment by lola — October 4, 2006 @ 5:13 pm - October 4, 2006
Again,
Fordham is AT FAULT for trying to cover this up.
That is why he quit. Your attempt to lay blame on democrats only blows up in your face
Comment by keogh — October 4, 2006 @ 5:14 pm - October 4, 2006
Why is this surprising?
The biggest crime the left sees today is hypocrisy. And it doesn’t even matter if you, yourself, are a hypocrite. Merely having an association with people who, for instance, oppose same-sex marriage is hypocrisy enough for a gay person.
I’m a conservative Republican, I don’t oppose same sex marriage. I’m not gay myself — but, if I were, I’m assuming that I’d be a hypocrite in their book….for consorting with people who oppose same sex marriage.
Forgetting for a second that the Dems mostly oppose it too, this clearly points to one conclusion:
Liberalism is their religion and a denial of that religion is grounds for retribution. If you are gay, or black, or Jewish, or a laborer and you do not support liberalism, you are an infidel.
Comment by imsnooping — October 4, 2006 @ 5:18 pm - October 4, 2006
“I do have one question: If there’s nothing wrong with being gay, why would being outed be humiliating?”
Because not everyone agrees that there is nothing wrong with being gay. I have a good friend who is very much in the closet due to his gay-bashing family. Certainly he and I agree that there is nothing wrong with being gay.
If I were to announce to his family, with my friend present, at Thanksgiving dinner that he’s been actively and secretly gay for years, would he feel humiliated? Of course he would.
(Here comes the rant… Brace yourself…)
Speaking as a gay man in a stable relationship with an adopted son, I would not shed a single god damn tear if these self-important and self-indulgent “gay activists” got penile and rectal cancer. Not only does their incessant desire to portray gay people as “revolutionaries” in such a way to foster distrust for me as a gay man and especially as a gay parent harm myself and my child, but now they are fully willing to put the trustworthiness of gay men in general in the center of national discourse for the sake of partisan political hackery and demonizing those who are insufficiently pure for their own particular gay agenda. Ass-tumors for all of them!
The “progressives” (those scare quotes are EARNED) are going along with it, too. Way to stand up for gay rights, stupid “progressive” bastards. The only thing they care about is hating their hated enemy. Everything else is disposable as politics dictate, and gays are usually the first to go in that regard.
Comment by Loundry — October 4, 2006 @ 5:19 pm - October 4, 2006
#41- Yeah, I’m not sure what basis there is to claim Fordham is gay. Is he out, or has gaypatriot accidently outed him?
Regardless, the failure to face the facts of Fordham’s involvement in the Foley scandal undercuts the case. He worked for Reynolds and tried to keep the allegations out of the press. Whether he did it as a coverup for political reasons or to protect Foley’s family, he tried to keep them out of the press. That is why he resigned. He is not a victim of some random maybe-gay witch hunt.
Comment by Also from Michigan — October 4, 2006 @ 5:23 pm - October 4, 2006
As I mentioned on my site:
“It would seem that if you can’t win an election on the issues, you win it on outing the gay members of the opposite party. Color me not surprised. Politics as pure perversion. If the moderates of this country have come to believe that the Republicans are “capable of anything,” just wait until they get a load of what the New! Improved! and Even More Degenerate Democrats can do.”
Comment by Vanderleun — October 4, 2006 @ 5:25 pm - October 4, 2006
That’s easy: a person’s sexuality is their own business, assuming that it’s legal. If they want to be open about what they do behind closed doors — be it homosexuality or S&M or whatever — that’s completely their prerogative. But if they don’t, for whatever reason, that is also their prerogative.
I’m not gay. And although I’m not at all ashamed of my own bedroom behavior, I’d just as soon it not be made public.
The argument used to be “What goes on in the bedroom is nobody else’s business.” Now, apparently, it is: so long as you aren’t public about your sexuality.
And if you aren’t going to be public about it yourself, by God…somebody else will make it public for you.
Does a gay person in this country still have the right to remain in the closet? Or is this such a shameful thing to do that they must be outed, if they won’t do it themselves?
Comment by imsnooping — October 4, 2006 @ 5:25 pm - October 4, 2006
Gay Republican Witch Hunt and Outings…
Seems that there is a list going around in the lefty circles aimed at “outing” gay republicans. Gay Patriot is outraged and says that anyone who values freedom and privacy should be too.
……
Trackback by Stop The ACLU — October 4, 2006 @ 5:28 pm - October 4, 2006
Well, it was only a matter of time before others joined Matt Drudge in attacking the victims. The conservative blog Passionate America ( http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/ which, by the bye, includes THIS blog in its list of favorite blogs) has outed one of Mark Foley’s victims, including publishing his full name, location, pictures, and email address.
Will the operators of this blog condemn the publication of this kind of information? Seems that you guys used to be all for privacy and that kind of thing. How do you feel about conservatives publishing the names and pictures of people who were the victims of a sexual predator when they were children?
Comment by Anonymous — October 4, 2006 @ 5:29 pm - October 4, 2006
Dave, can you marry? If you and your partner sought, could you adopt children in every state? Can you file joint federal tax returns? If you changed companies, would that company offer you the same benefits a straight married employee would have?
Yes, you may have achieved much. Yes, in some areas, you may be physically assaulted. There’s just something lacking in dignity when two people who love each other, regardless of gender, have to find legal work arounds to make sure each person is taken care of. And even then, we don’t get everything that heterosexual couples do.
Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - October 4, 2006
The sickness of the rights knows no bounds.
You rightists name page, BEFORE any investigation can happen.
Comment by keogh — October 4, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - October 4, 2006
The title of your piece can cause a misunderstanding of your point.
I think some believe your title means:
More Foley Fallout: The Gay “GOP Witchhunt” Begins
.. but your piece has it saying ..
More Foley Fallout: The “Gay GOP” Witchhunt Begins
Comment by Neo — October 4, 2006 @ 5:38 pm - October 4, 2006
BR, whether acknowledged or not, I think the practice of outing is meant to intimidate people into action by using fear.
I came out of the closet because I felt living in one was undignified. The only thing less dignified is to strip a person of the choice as to whether or not to be out.
Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 5:39 pm - October 4, 2006
#51…Being gay is more than just a matter of what gender one sleeps with.
Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 5:40 pm - October 4, 2006
You know, the right to privacy use to mean something in this country. Now it’s all just going too hell!
What in the world are we doing to ourseleves?
Comment by Panther — October 4, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - October 4, 2006
The reason why the “victim” was outed was because a blogger discovered that he had left the page program some time before that IM exchange and he was apparently 18 years of age at the time, and it was necessary to identify him and aspects about his career in order for the blogger to back up his claim. It’s just possible that Mark Foley, at least with respect to that one set of IMs, was being smeared. Smearers forfeit their right to anonymity, in my view.
The timing of this scandal reminds me of the Anita Hill accusation, which liberal activist groups had information on, and held closely to their chests, only to spring it at the very last second when it became clear that Clarence Thomas might actually be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. The m.o. similarities are striking.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 4, 2006 @ 5:43 pm - October 4, 2006
Patrick:
The reason why the “victim” was outed was because a blogger discovered that he had left the page program some time before that IM exchange
ALL of the inappropriate contact between Foley and the Pages was after they had left the program. So what does that have to do with revealing the kids’ identity?
It’s telling that Foley hasn’t denied any of it, at all… accusations that he is being ’smeared’ don’t hold much water in the face of non-denials.
Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 4, 2006 @ 5:45 pm - October 4, 2006
James-
No, we can’t marry. We are starting the process to adopt. We never looked into joint tax returns. I actually left a company that had same-sex benefits to work for a company that doesn’t. But so what?
We’ve been to a lawyer to draw up the necessary paperwork so that he gets everything if I die. Personally, I don’t find it un-dignified that we had to do that. If that option wasn’t available, then yes, that would be a problem. But it is available.
In my family, we basically learned we could have what we wanted, but it wouldn’t necessarily be handed to us. So the fact that we may have to put forth a little extra effort to get what we want or need is not a big deal.
Comment by Dave — October 4, 2006 @ 5:49 pm - October 4, 2006
My earlier comment by “james” is not by the more frequent commenter “James”. I apologize to him for not choosing a more clearly different name.
Comment by james — October 4, 2006 @ 5:50 pm - October 4, 2006
The IMs have been consistently portrayed as an example of Foley engaging in sex chats with underage boys. At least that is how *I* understood the IMs. The fact that he engages in sex chats isn’t a smear, since he clearly did that, but the claim that he sex chatted with a underage page may very well be a smear. That is, if the blogger is right.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 4, 2006 @ 5:52 pm - October 4, 2006
It is kind of hard to argue that there aren’t any dems advocating the idea of witch hunt.
After all Bob Beckel-a routine democratic spokesman essentially said that gay congressmen shouldn’t be allowed to have contact with Pages (yes it is a paraphrase). He said it on Hannity and Colmes on Monday night I believe.
I think it is sad that anyone things this is an okay or acceptable thing to do.
As for being in the closet-in general I hope that nobody feels the need to stay in the closet, but some people do for their own reasons, and they shouldn’t be forced out, because somebody else doesn’t like their reasons. I have a very good friend who is gay-he is out in the community we grew up in, but his grandmother doesn’t know (she lives about 2 hours from where we grew up), and he doesn’t want to tell her (mostly because he isn’t sure she would understand it, and he likes the relationship he has with her). Now some may say his reasons are wrong, but I think it would be cruel for anyone to tell his grandmother, because they think his reasons are lacking.
Comment by just me — October 4, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - October 4, 2006
#48…I realize not everyone believes there’s nothing wrong with being gay.
It’s a matter of perspective and personal choice, I suppose. When hiding my orientation from my family and friends, I didn’t feel like they knew me as I really am. In coming out to my mother, I actually told her that if she couldn’t learn to accept it, we’d have no relationship at all. Harsh? Absolutely. Do I regret my ultimatum? I do. She came to accept, but I shouldn’t have forced the issue. Still, I got to a point at which I wanted to be me 100% of the time; not straight James for family and gay James for tricks.
As it pertains to this witchhunt, even this liberal has to admit that outing is not just counterproductive to the community an to gay conservatives bringing change in opinion to the GOP; it’s just cruel.
Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - October 4, 2006
“there’s anger among House Republicans”
Yes, Ian, whenever I want to know what the Republicans are thinking I ask Corn. Or might his perception of Republican actions and motives turn upon his belief that Republicans are a “party that is anti-gay” and “refuses to recognize [gays] as [] full citizen[s]“?
“Fordham was axed for COVERING FOR A PEDOPHILE!!! ”
While wrong for its own reasons, whatever Rep. Foley did I see no indication at all that he was either attracted to or persued any prepubescent children (i.e. the correct definition of pædophile). Repeated claims and branding of a man who talked dirty to a young but sexually mature person as a “child molester” or “pædophile” only serves to lessen the meaning of real child molestors and to reinforce the “gay = pædophile” stereotype.
“If there’s nothing wrong with being gay, why would being outed be humiliating?”
While I may not be the best to answer this, I’m not sure that “humiliation” is really the motivation at work. Perhaps these individuals just don’t want to deal with the various personal hassles gay men often detail. Or, given their involvement in politics, they don’t want to be labeled as “the gay ____” because, like Bruce, they consider themselves as Republican gays and not Gay Republicans.
“However, if one looks at the suffix in the word “homophobe”…well, a person who opposes gay marriage based on policy or personal beliefs might not truly be gay hating, but what about gay fearing?”
James, this question is silly, as it assumes the invented term “homophobe” is not only right but truly applicable to all of those to whom it is cast upon. Personally, I have always felt a more accurate term would have been something more like “mishomonist” (I have never studied Latin, so please don’t laugh too loud if you know what I’m trying to say) along the lines of “misogynist” or “misanthrope”. If someone hates gays why should we say he’s afraid of them? In any event, like I said, to accept this approbation to so wide a group as “those opposed to gay marriage” assumes they are all operating under the same motivation. I, for one, feel confident in saying my opposition has to do with neither fear nor hate.
Comment by submandave — October 4, 2006 @ 5:57 pm - October 4, 2006
Toqueermada Ascendant…
As the Foley scandal broke, I noted how strange it seemed to me that some gay liberal commenters eschewed the general GLBT philosophy of compartmentalizing sexuality and disassociating homosexuality from behaviors such as ephebophilia and pedophilia. …
Trackback by - The Malcontent - — October 4, 2006 @ 5:59 pm - October 4, 2006
Blackmailing Gays…
Again, the party doesn’t look to demonize “same-sexers”, we look to make everyone equal and no one above equal. Policies pushed by advocacy groups such as the NAACP, GLAAD and others seek special rights…
Trackback by Environmental Republican — October 4, 2006 @ 6:07 pm - October 4, 2006
first of all Bob beckel is a nobody on Fox. No democrat I know has any idea what he is or who he is. he’s not howard dean or hillary so don’t pretend he is some sort of force in the democrat party.
Also, this is the worst stupidest most foul thing I’ve ever heard. that gay republicans would be forced to quit their jobs under the suspicion that THEY (not hastert ?) somehow were part of a conspiracy to allow foley’s abuses to continue. It IS a witchunt and if carried out will be as big a scandal as the page thing. anyone who knew about foley and didn’t say anything was doing it either waiting for an oppurtune time (democrats) or because they didn’t want to lose the seat to a democrat and/ or have a scandal (republican)
Comment by lester — October 4, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - October 4, 2006
#62…
I guess the point I’m trying to illustrate is that many companies that offer benefits to married couples but not to same-sex couples that are just as committed is, for me, an indicator of how well company policy handles gay and lesbian employees. My company also offered no same-sex benefits when I started. I joined a committee that drafted a proposal to get them. Now we have them.
Congratulations! My partner and I have decided to use a surrogate mother. In GA, the legislation is drafted and ready to file that would “relieve” us of the privilege of being able to adopt based on our sexual orientation. Also, our governor appointed to a state child agency a woman instrumental in creating a ban on gay foster parenting in her previous state. Scared? Yeah, we are…just a bit.
No real need to look. In some states like Mass., couples can file joint returns at the state level. Never at the federal. And if the state has legalized gay marriage or civil unions, the same-sex benefits may be exempt from taxation, but never at the federal level for the portion that covers the same-sex partner.
Good show. But. Gets expensive, though. I’m glad my partner and I had the means. In Louisiana, the law requires one to do just that, or the state will divide everything among survivors. The spouse is sure to get a piece regardless. A same-sex partner? Not a chance without that paper work. Marriage license would definitely be come in handy in that situation.
I learned that in my family, too. Actually, mom always said that because I was a black male I’d have to work twice as hard because there were many negative stereotypes I would have to overcome. Overkill? Yes. But, I grew to be a self-reliant person and a decent business professional.
I think what we may have is a bit of difference of opinion. Gay Patriot West mentioned that conservatives are for freedom and liberals are for equality. I can sort of see what he means. I don’t want a hand out, but I do want what’s fair.
Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - October 4, 2006
Dave - there are plenty of benefits straight married couples get that you do not have the option to…beyond just leaving your estate to your partner. And in many states, that can be challenged by family members and since your relationship to your partner is not really valued in any way by many of those states, then it becomes if nothing else, a hassle that we should have to endure. Though I don’t see how any of that has anything to do with a supposed witch hunt. Kirk Fordham has worked for several members of Congress for many years, some of whom were decidedly anti gay in their voting records. That’s his business if he chooses to work for such people. I do think he has a right to privacy, as we all do (which oddly enough is argued for here but against by so many other Republicans on so many other issues). But the idea that there is some purge (when only one person has resigned) is taking place is a bit hasty. If this list had any power, those people Fordham has worked for would have dropped him years ago. But they did not. To deny that he resigned because he knows that it is going to be revealed who knew and didn’t know that Foley was behaving the way he was. And while I don’t think, if he gave warnings, that he should take the fall for this, I do think he knows it will minimize damage that is coming. And he can blame democrats for bringing it but the damage is deserved if it ends up being true. And the Republicans can’t blame the Democrats for wanting the truth without looking like they were okay with hiding it in the first place. They need to be just as vocal about demanding the truth or they will look like a bunch of hypocrites.
Comment by Britton — October 4, 2006 @ 6:14 pm - October 4, 2006
Policies pushed by advocacy groups such as the NAACP, GLAAD and others seek special rights…
What special rights would those be? They seek for everyone to enjoy the same right: the right to have a permanent, recognized relationship with the person you love.
In fact, it’s arguable that they are fighting for greater rights for straights.
Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 4, 2006 @ 6:16 pm - October 4, 2006
Why does it surprise anyone the way the Left treats Gay Conservatives? It is the exact same way they treat Black Conservatives!
Comment by BPorter — October 4, 2006 @ 6:18 pm - October 4, 2006
[Deleted for violating terms of commenting at GayPatriot.]
Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 6:19 pm - October 4, 2006
Foleygate Reloaded…
Glass houses and all that….
Trackback by A Blog For All — October 4, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - October 4, 2006
They seek for everyone to enjoy the same right: the right to have a permanent, recognized relationship with the person you love.
Everyone?
Does “the person you love” include the minor of Mark Foley’s choice?
Does it include Warren Jeff’s multiples?
In short, whether or not you love someone is not sufficient grounds to grant you legal shortcuts. The question that needs to be asked is whether or not these shortcuts are necessary — and if so, what they are reinforcing.
The vast majority of marriage benefits exist for the purposes of couples with children. The fact that infertile heterosexuals can get married does not invalidate that; what it simply means is that there should be a different set of rules based on the presence or absence of children.
As to the rest:
“Permanent” has nothing to do with the government; it has everything to do with the couple’s commitment.
“Recognized”, in what context? Do you really need the government to validate that you are a couple?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2006 @ 6:36 pm - October 4, 2006
I noticed the anti-outing post is locked out from responses, but I think it needs a response. I have no doubt that anti-gay conservatives (whether they are republican or democrat) will use this to go after gays who are either elected officials or work as staff on the hill. If someone is gay and lives their life with respect for themselves and others, then they have the right to be as out or in as they wish to be. However, closeted gays who work actively to pass anti-gay legislation and hurt other gays via the political process deserve to be outed for the hypocrits they are.
Comment by Kevin — October 4, 2006 @ 6:37 pm - October 4, 2006
#70 - James -
Congratulations on the surrogate mother — how exciting! We thought about going the surrogate route, but decided on adoption. I’m sorry to hear that your adoption rights are in danger in GA, though. I think adoption is a different issue than marriage, and I would definitely fight to keep that right. It doesn’t sound like you were a victim of “overkill” in your childhood, but that you were made aware of the unfortunate realities that you would encounter. Sounds like you were definitely given the strength to conquer them!
#71 - Britton -
You’re right - there are many automatic rights that come with being married. But as far as contesting wills, that happens all the time to straight people, too! Just ask Anna Nicole.
But to get back on topic.
Of course, the whole witch hunt thing is pretty despicable. It seems that the liberals always talk about “choice” when it comes to other issues, but apparently “choice” doesn’t apply when it comes to one’s personal decision on whether to be “out” if one is Republican. I didn’t infer from the other links that Fordham was gay, so I can’t say that he’s a victim of the witch hunt, but it does sound like there definitely will be victims soon.
Comment by Dave — October 4, 2006 @ 6:38 pm - October 4, 2006
However, closeted gays who work actively to pass anti-gay legislation and hurt other gays via the political process deserve to be outed for the hypocrits they are.
Why?
Can’t you beat their ideas at the ballot box?
What people like you will never realize, Kevin, is that outing is the last, desperate gasp of gays who are so repulsive to voters that they cannot get anything accomplished without digging in other peoples’ trash cans.
Furthermore, what you also don’t realize is that outing works on the principle of appealing to the prejudice of an antigay electorate. You believe that if you reveal that someone is gay, their voters will immediately remove them from office — which might be the case. However, you have reinforced the belief of these antigay individuals that gays are not fit to hold public office — and they will elect someone who aligns with their beliefs to replace the individual removed.
Example? Ed Schrock, replaced with Thelma Drake — who is even more antigay — and a resurgence in Virginia to constitutionally strip gays of rights.
The reason you support outing, Kevin, is because you don’t realize why voters won’t support people like you, who mock their religious beliefs and claim that they are all hateful and ignorant bigots who want to send gays to concentration camps.
People like myself, who CAN appeal to voters because we respect their right to different opinions, their religious beliefs, and their concerns, have no need to out, nor are we inclined to do it on principle.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2006 @ 7:21 pm - October 4, 2006
“People like myself, who CAN appeal to voters because we respect their right to different opinions, their religious beliefs, and their concerns…”
Is that why Mark Foley “loves the closet” (in his own words)? If “people like you” can appeal to voters, why is it that only closeted gay Republicans get elected, and those that do come out only do so when forcibly outed? If you guys can appeal to voters, then why can’t you get elected honestly, the way Tammy Bruce did?
Name me one gay Republican who got elected to federal office from the outset running as an actual gay Republican.
Not to mention the fact that “respecting their right to different opinions, their religious beliefs, and their concerns” hasn’t kept them from engaging in a “gay witchhunt” to purge the gays out of the GOP. For all you have done for them, you would think that they would be more grateful…
Comment by Anonymous — October 4, 2006 @ 7:50 pm - October 4, 2006
[...] **update** Gay Patriot has a must read post on “The List” of gay Republican staffers that is circulating among DC and MSM circles. In the post he takes exception to David Corn’s article. Did it ever occur to Mr. Corn that the representatives and Senators he mentions that may or may not have gay staffers do not care about their sexual orientation yet value their participation as public servants? Is it not rational that you can hire a gay staffer, but at the same time oppose PUBLIC POLICY POSITIONS that you are morally or philosophically opposed to without being labeled a homophobe? [...]
Pingback by The Real Ugly American.com » Blog Archive » Greenwald’s latest hate filled post — October 4, 2006 @ 7:53 pm - October 4, 2006
I don’t see this as a “gay” issue as much as the outing of a dirty old man who hits on young people, something I suspect a lot of hetero congressmen on both sides of the aisle did.
For young people, gay is not a big issue.
As for having gay staff and being conservative.
You know, the reason I oppose gay marriage is because it will be used to prosecute those who think men and women are different. This is a deeper issue than being gay, since it echoes the radical feminist icon that there is no difference between men and women…but biologically there is, and much of the divorce and “equality” laws actually work against those of us who try to combine marriage and family and jobs.
One confusion of David Corn is that he equates the puritanism of the religious right with the more easy going Catholic legalism.
In Catholicism, adultery, gay sex, alcoholism, lying, taking bribes, and cheating are all equally bad…but hell, you can go to confession and get a “get out of hell free” card, so it’s not such a big thing.
Comment by Boinkie — October 4, 2006 @ 8:25 pm - October 4, 2006
i think we should be discussing the military commissions act of 2006 instead of this foley dickhead. and outing anyone is going to do more harm than good and is an ugly thing to be doing!
Comment by ryan — October 4, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - October 4, 2006
Goodness, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in evidence here. Please get a grip. These hystrionics are pathetic.
First of all, I’ve only just noticed that GP has apparently outed Kirk Fordham. I certainly didn’t know he was gay. I’ve been reading all the usual liberal suspect blogs and I have to come here to find out that Kirk Fordham is gay. Wow and GP is ranting about outing gay Republicans - geez, he just threw a big boulder into his own glass house.
It’s pretty clear to me that this is all a purge and blowback within the GOP. The Dems and liberals have no need to do anything except watch - and that seems to be what they’re doing. It doesn’t look like Fordham is going to go quietly and I suspect if he talks more, then things are going to get a heck of a lot worse for the “Foley Five” who have demonstrated such arrogance and incompetence as GOP House leaders. As I’ve said before, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving gang of criminals. And just four weeks before the election: PRICELESS!!!
Comment by Ian — October 4, 2006 @ 9:25 pm - October 4, 2006
The Only Place Worse Than The Closet
Comment by refinish69 — October 4, 2006 @ 9:35 pm - October 4, 2006
[...] More: Gay Patriot blasts David Corn’s statement on an alleged-to-exist document circulating in Washington of supposedly gay Republican staffers. Here’s more on that “List”: On CBS News on Tuesday, correspondent Gloria Borger reported that there’s anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called a “network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice.” The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List–drawn up by gay politicos–is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network. [...]