Come on Out David Dreier! You the next contestant on The Price of Hypocrisy

September 25, 2004 11:41 AM

I'll take Closeted Republican Congressmen for 800, Alex.Wonder why you haven't seen GOP Rep. David Dreier of California on tv lately? One of the most visible public faces of the GOP is outed, thanks to Blogactive, who gives him a Roy Cohn Award for 24 years of working against gay and lesbian rights while living as a gay man yourself. Raw Story/Blue Lemur has more, too, including the news blackout by local papers in his district.
posted by amberglow (69 comments total)

from the LA Weekly story: Dreier clearly meets that standard, for his voting record is strewn with anti-gay positions. To cite just a few: He opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would have banned discrimination against gay people in hiring; voted for the gay-bashing Defense of Marriage Act; voted for banning adoption by gay and lesbian couples in the District of Columbia (3,000 miles away from Dreier’s district); voted to allow federally funded charities to discriminate against gays in employment, even where local laws prohibit such bias; and voted against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
posted by amberglow at 11:44 AM on September 25, 2004

When the guy that runs blogactive said he'd proceed with a series of high level GOP outings this fall, I didn't think he'd have anything better than that gay chat line message, but damn, he's struck again.
posted by mathowie at 11:56 AM on September 25, 2004

The author of the LA Weekly story has a blog.
LA Observed has some good links.
posted by euphorb at 12:04 PM on September 25, 2004

BoiFromTroy actually poured gas on this fire (and is pissed about it, being a gay Republican) by saying (and later altering, after it got too much attention)...Despite Rogers' attempts at 'outing', the question of Dreier's sexuality is about as much of an open secret as that of California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres.
posted by amberglow at 12:30 PM on September 25, 2004

i think one's kinda a double edge sword: i agree that the hypocracy that this guy is displaying is grounds for his dismissal...but at the same time the way that the sexual preference turns into an acusatory (and negative) thing just makes me think that it will make the home consitutants all the more homophobic...which isn't exactly the point of the gay rights movement is it?
posted by NGnerd at 12:39 PM on September 25, 2004

Is David Drier really "one of the most visible public faces of the GOP"? I've never heard of him before.
posted by kjh at 12:41 PM on September 25, 2004

kjh: Yes. If you watch TV news talk shows with anything remotely resembling regularity, you've almost surely seen him.
posted by raysmj at 12:47 PM on September 25, 2004

...but at the same time the way that the sexual preference turns into an acusatory (and negative) thing...
It's not a negative accusatory thing about him being gay--it's a hypocrisy thing. I think everyone is very careful about the distinction. Dreier, by being closeted and continually voting against gays and lesbian interests and rights, is actually perpetuating the negative himself.

kjh, he's on CNN and the other news networks, as well as all the Sunday shows, all the time--or rather, he used to be. (on preview--what raysmj said)
posted by amberglow at 12:52 PM on September 25, 2004

> It's not a negative accusatory thing about him being gay--it's a hypocrisy thing.

How does his voter base feel about the issue? It's not at all hypocritical for a representative to vote his constituents' opinions rather than his own.

Alternatively, he may sincerely believe special-interest legislation for special groups is wrong. He's a Republican, after all. For instance, I've known farmer-politicians (a few)--people actively living as farmers!--who voted against the farm lobby because they thought farmers were already getting too much special government back-scratching.

I really don't see any reason why someone who is merely homosexual must be required to toe the queer political-agenda line, as if all gays had to be political clones of all other gays. Does that rainbow mean anything, or doesn't it?
posted by jfuller at 1:26 PM on September 25, 2004

Wow, it's like our own generation's McCarthy.
posted by xmutex at 1:37 PM on September 25, 2004

I really don't see any reason why someone who is merely homosexual must be required to toe the queer political-agenda line
Well he was certainly towing an agenda, a hate-filled Christian Coalition agenda.

Selling out gay people is one thing, but he was also lying to his constituency, perpetuating a status -quo that attempts to demonstrate that homosexuality is abnormal, dangerous and unnatural.

This status quo makes it dangerous to live even the most closeted life. This guy was playing with fire and he got burned.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 1:45 PM on September 25, 2004

Burn it down.
posted by Nelson at 1:50 PM on September 25, 2004

How does his voter base feel about the issue? It's not at all hypocritical for a representative to vote his constituents' opinions rather than his own.

It seems reasonable to disclose his own potential conflict of interest, though. You know, so his voter base can decide whether they trust him to do the right thing and continue voting in favor of discrimination in the workspace, that sort of thing.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:57 PM on September 25, 2004

In the future, gay politicians will either refuse to enact [or particpate in enacting] anti-gay legislation, knowing that their hypocrisy will be spotlighted, or will join gay friendly parties.

To me, that's a good thing.

special-interest legislation for special groups is wrong.
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would have banned discrimination against gay people in hiring; voted for the gay-bashing Defense of Marriage Act; voted for banning adoption by gay and lesbian couples in the District of Columbia (3,000 miles away from Dreier’s district); voted to allow federally funded charities to discriminate against gays in employment, even where local laws prohibit such bias; and voted against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

So now removal of discrimination is special interest legislation? How do you feel about the Americans with Disabilities Act?

You guys still don't get it. You want gays, along with all the other minorities to get out of the way and stop spoiling the view. You rename the fight for civil rights as 'special interest' lobbying. We exist. We want equality. We will fight to achieve that, and high-profile hypocrites will be harmed along the way. They will get as much sympathy from me as the gays & lesbian workers sacked for their orientation and the loving couples denied equality in marriage and family life. FUCK ALL.

I know exactly where you'd have been in the 60's, and it wouldn't have been on the back of the bus.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:08 PM on September 25, 2004

Armitage Shanks suggests:

> It seems reasonable to disclose his own potential conflict of interest,
> though. You know, so his voter base can decide whether they trust
> him to do the right thing and continue voting in favor of discrimination
> in the workspace, that sort of thing.

Well, let's consider Amber's more-inside first comment:

He opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would have banned discrimination against gay people in hiring; voted for the gay-bashing Defense of Marriage Act; voted for banning adoption by gay and lesbian couples in the District of Columbia (3,000 miles away from Dreier’s district); voted to allow federally funded charities to discriminate against gays in employment, even where local laws prohibit such bias; and voted against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

It looks to me as if he had enough of a record to convince pretty much anybody. I'm convinced. As for his personal sexuality, if he thinks that's a private matter then it's a private matter and none of my (or your or anyone else's) business. How many times must I quote The Advocate to you people?
posted by jfuller at 2:26 PM on September 25, 2004

Wouldn't it only be really hypocritical if he was:

(1) holding a position he didn't think gays should hold?
(2) trying to marry a male partner
(3) trying to adopt

Or, what jfuller said.
posted by namespan at 2:31 PM on September 25, 2004

Actually, the more I think about this the more I see this not as hypocrisy, but as a point of respect -- it may be that this is a politician whose policy doesn't apparently directly give rise from any personal axes he's got to grind. I'm religious, but see no reason to defend the placement of "under God" in the pledge much less require it to be recited, and some of my religious friends thinks that makes me both a hypocrite and a traitor.

So yeah, if you want, you can still try to make a civil rights case out of opposing his positions, but hypocrisy seems like a projected label at best.

Or maybe Thomas Sowell's just an Oreo sellout.
posted by namespan at 2:45 PM on September 25, 2004

The Christian Coalition doesn't ignore gay rights, it actively fights against them. Sure they're all smiles, but they want to turn the U.S. into a theocracy where it will be dangerous to be gay or lesbian. Buying into this crap if you are gay is hypocritical.

Let's see exactly how many of DD's bedfellow stick by his side.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 2:47 PM on September 25, 2004

Or maybe Thomas Sowell's just an Oreo sellout.

I find that offensive.

Oreos are a fine baked good.
posted by jonmc at 2:50 PM on September 25, 2004

So, namespan, he has to be an out gay US senator who wants to adopt a child, before we can call him a hypocrite?

All right then, I'll settle for autohomophobic bigot. You can work out what that means, right?

I hardly need to ask what your position on the FMA is, nor jfuller's. Your weasel words in defence of bigotry disgust me.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:54 PM on September 25, 2004

How much longer am I going to have to wait for girl scout cookies?
posted by weston at 2:55 PM on September 25, 2004

Sorry you're disgusted, but there's no necessary hypocrisy here. It's completely concievable that he may like having sex with men and also think that having gay marriage, gay adoption, and gay people in certain jobs is a bad social policy. Maybe he's wrong. Go ahead and argue that. But the hypocrite label is not just silly, it's nearly a non-sequitur.
posted by namespan at 3:00 PM on September 25, 2004

> Let's see exactly how many of DD's bedfellow stick by his side.

One presumes all of these knew Mr. Dreier's high-profile public positions and, being bedfellows, they can't very well have overlooked his private ones. And they fucked for him anyway? But now, now, you predict they'll dump him? If so, I'd say there's plenty of hypocrisy to go 'round. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
posted by jfuller at 3:11 PM on September 25, 2004

if he thinks that's a private matter then it's a private matter and none of my (or your or anyone else's) business.

Except that he's bent on making other people's sexuality the business of the nation by keeping gays marginalized (opposing anti-discrimination laws). His own expectation of respect is the ultimate hypocrisy when he is preventing gays from having the same rights as other people.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:26 PM on September 25, 2004

Or maybe Thomas Sowell's just an Oreo sellout.

I find that offensive.

Oreos are a fine baked good.

:-) I am in complete agreement!
posted by nofundy at 3:26 PM on September 25, 2004

there's plenty of hypocrisy to go 'round. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) ???
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 3:26 PM on September 25, 2004

It's completely concievable that he may like having sex with men and also think that having gay marriage, gay adoption, and gay people in certain jobs is a bad social policy. Maybe he's wrong. Go ahead and argue that. But the hypocrite label is not just silly, it's nearly a non-sequitur.

You're right: it is conceivable. That doesn't make other explanations less likely, and in fact, your explanation fails Occam's Razor. What is more likely is that DD is pandering to an anti-gay agenda, while behaving in a way that his panderees would like to forbid. People in power have always permitted themselves luxuries they deny to others. Strictly speaking, you can say that what DD is doing doesn't qualify, but it sidles right up to it.

We humans are pattern-seekers. DD's voting record evinces a pattern. It might be a set of considered policy positions based on constitutional reasoning...but probably not.
posted by adamrice at 3:37 PM on September 25, 2004

As for his personal sexuality, if he thinks that's a private matter then it's a private matter and none of my (or your or anyone else's) business.

So he's a gay man who think it's a private matter and none of anybody's business, but he votes *against* legislation to prevent people being fired for being gay, which is a private matter and none of anybody's business.

He can go Cheney himself.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:58 PM on September 25, 2004

For those of you missing the point, he's a hypocrite because he's hiding a trait of himself which if obviously unpalatable to his constituency, if one can assume that his constituency agrees with his political positions.

By outing him it seems that his constituents are merely put in the position where they have to accept that a man who, while he is politically acceptable to them, is at least presumably not acceptable personally.

The voters still get a chance to vote for the same guy who's been delivering the goods to them. However they have to face up to an issue which they clearly don't want to confront.
posted by clevershark at 4:26 PM on September 25, 2004

This "private matter" thing is a crock of shit. Every straight politician of any party trots out their sexual orientation at every opportunity. They talk about the wife and children, and use them for political gain, put pictures of them in their literature and their websites, want to be seen as upstanding heterosexual family-oriented men and women, etc...

And when you make legislation discriminating against a group because of their sexual orientation, it's immediately a public matter.
posted by amberglow at 4:29 PM on September 25, 2004

namespan, to repeat:
I'll settle for autohomophobic* bigot.

Carry on arguing against the 'hypocrite' designation, but I accept for the sake of debate, that he is not a hypocrite in your understanding of the word.

*It seems that dictionaries don't have this word yet, so I'll define it as '1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men, by lesbians or gay men. 2. Behavior based on such a feeling.'
posted by dash_slot- at 4:37 PM on September 25, 2004

self-loathing works too, dash, but he's definitely a hypocrite. (and why does the dictionary have to come into each of these threads? to derail? as a distraction from the real issue?)
posted by amberglow at 4:41 PM on September 25, 2004

> The voters still get a chance to vote for the same guy who's been delivering
> the goods to them. However they have to face up to an issue which
> they clearly don't want to confront.

Ve shall zee. As BoiFromTroy also notes, "anyone thinking a Dreier outing might put him at a competitive disadvantage might check out this picture of his opponent, a female 'heavy equipment operator' who doesn't appear to be married either."
posted by jfuller at 4:47 PM on September 25, 2004

your explanation fails Occam's Razor. What is more likely is that DD is pandering to an anti-gay agenda, while behaving in a way that his panderees would like to forbid. People in power have always permitted themselves luxuries they deny to others.

Which explanation is simpler?

(a) He actually believes what he espouses
(b) His actions are part of a political plot for power, to achieve ends which he doesn't agree with

(a) is the simpler explanation which fits the facts -- unless you can't disconnect the concept of personal sexual preference from social policy.

Carry on arguing against the 'hypocrite' designation, but I accept for the sake of debate, that he is not a hypocrite in your understanding of the word.

quite neighborly of you, dash. :) We may now carry on our regular heated debate about bigotry without being caught up on hypocrisy.
posted by namespan at 4:50 PM on September 25, 2004

Has the man made any kind of statement in reaction to the outing and the criticisms about his record? I'd like to hear what he has to say about this. It's possible he could defend himself and stand by his voting record, though I suspect he's much more likely to make like a waffle and fry his own ass. The fact that he hid the fact that he is gay suggests that he's one to make large concessions for the sake of his career or political expediency. And if he'll do that, what else will he do?
posted by orange swan at 4:53 PM on September 25, 2004

" ... voted for the gay-bashing Defense of Marriage Act"

You mean the one Clinton signed?
posted by RavinDave at 5:12 PM on September 25, 2004

Clinton's executive record on gay rights is pretty poor. But last I heard, he was heterosexual.
posted by Nelson at 5:15 PM on September 25, 2004

hey jfuller! His challenger has come out as a lesbian!

In a surprising twist to an already unusual California congressional race, the Democratic challenger to incumbent Republican Congressman David Dreier has told RAW STORY that she is a lesbian, and has made a series of conditional statements rebuking Dreier’s position on gay issues while concurrently questioning the payment arrangements with his chief of staff Brad Smith.
Her statement makes this the first known time in history an openly gay candidate has run against another candidate also believed to be gay. The L.A. Times, presented with this information, has said they are not planning a story.

The LA Times needs to rethink that-definitely.
posted by amberglow at 5:23 PM on September 25, 2004

I'll give you no arguments about DOMA; it was pandering at its lowest. One of my senators-- whom we all assume to be gay, or seriously under-sexed-- voted for it, and it made me question whether or not he should be out-ed.

If anyone is interested, you can see what who in the Senate and who in the House supported this legislation.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:29 PM on September 25, 2004

> ... voted for the gay-bashing Defense of Marriage Act

You mean just like that fascist queer-basher Paul Wellstone did?

> The L.A. Times, presented with this information, has said they are not
> planning a story.

Part of the news blackout, I take it? I'm reminded of a poll taken once upon a time on the burning question whether Gov. Jerry Brown should marry Linda Ronstadt. 1% said yes, 1% said no, 99% didn't care.
posted by jfuller at 5:31 PM on September 25, 2004

which Senator, gesamtkunstwerk? Feingold or Kohl? send a (confidential) tip to Blogactive. ([e-mail])
posted by amberglow at 5:34 PM on September 25, 2004

His challenger has come out as a lesbian

Omigod these people are everywhere! Circle the wagons! Hide the bibles! Look under the bed!
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:39 PM on September 25, 2004

Signorile actually asked Dreier:
When I asked Dreier, who is in the middle of his own re-election campaign, about his sexual orientation and the long-held rumors about him, he twice refused to clarify whether he was heterosexual or not.
"I'm not going to answer that," Dreier said.
posted by amberglow at 5:41 PM on September 25, 2004

Which Senator, gesamtkunstwerk? Tip off blogactive, do. If there's one thing the movement needs it's another homosexual-vs.-homosexual catfight. So liberating! Oh, the dignity!
posted by jfuller at 5:43 PM on September 25, 2004

Oh, do give us more of your insight into the movement, jfuller.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:48 PM on September 25, 2004

Because of course, the mere fact that two competitors in a political race are homosexual will make the race a catfight.

/oy
posted by Space Coyote at 5:54 PM on September 25, 2004

jfuller has issues--the belittling and mocking is very catty--gay even.
posted by amberglow at 5:56 PM on September 25, 2004

If I thought either of my Senators were hypocrites, I would write to them first and then to blog active. I accept that legislators occasionally compromise on certain votes. And yes, I did write pretty harsh (signed) letters to every Wisconsinite who supported Clinton's amendment.

With the exception of DOMA, they're exceptionally responsible legislators (and seem to be nice people). And my representative, Tammy Baldwin rocks.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:59 PM on September 25, 2004

Gay or not, hypocrite or not, the good congressman is clearly a plain, old-fashioned asshole. If informing his colleagues and constituents of his true preference in sexual partners, snack foods, or operating systems will cause discomfort to him or damage to his career, then I'm all for it.
posted by majcher at 6:13 PM on September 25, 2004

quite neighborly of you, dash. :)

Well, now we've got the neighbourliness out of the way:
you have no idea of the anger the comments made by homophobes generates in me. That someone can support the notion that I am due less respect and equal rights for any reason whatsoever is unjust, and when a judge tries to correct it, I am left without remedy, is excruciatingly painful.

I have think twice, and preview thrice, and delete my original feelings, because my words are too intemperate for a public forum. I am closer to wishing violence than on most any other subject. I fully understand why campaigners take direct action - well, we tend not to riot, preferring usually stuff like invading churches and accosting Robert Mugabe - and yet I also realise also that you don't fucking care, so why do I bother.

If you were actually my neighbour, I'd move away. I don't want to be anywhere near someone that supports the limitation on my freedom, my rights and my sense of being a part of my own society.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:20 PM on September 25, 2004

To be honest, I don't know anything, it's just what many of us have assumed. And his human rights record is, for the exception of DOMA, unblemished; his Christian coalition score is 0; and he supports civil rights, even coming from a very homogenous state. I don't think any of us want to live in a country where no one has any privacy. Nor do we want to live in a country where blantant hypocracy goes un-checked.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:21 PM on September 25, 2004

Well, public figures (incl. elected officials) don't have much right to privacy. Hasn't that been firmly established in courts (and outside of them) for a long while now?
posted by amberglow at 6:41 PM on September 25, 2004

Or is it only an issue when it's the privacy of Republicans? We certainly learned that Democrats don't have any such rights during Clinton's Monica thing.
posted by amberglow at 7:00 PM on September 25, 2004

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwnnnnnnnn

Well, public figures (incl. elected officials) don't have much right to privacy

I agree with that. You choose the life, and reap the whirlwind.


Going on vacation for the week. Have a good one folks.
posted by a3matrix at 7:41 PM on September 25, 2004

Uh, this is kind of a duplicate post.

Dreier has a good chance of being evicted from office, despite the fact that Cynthia Matthews is a terrible candidate with no political experience and little credibility (compare with the other Political Human Sacrifice candidate to replace the Democrat Joe Baca, Republican Ed Laning, who is a Planning Commissioner for one of the largest geographic areas in the country). You'll have a small but significant number of the fundies and other homophobic types who won't vote for either candidate. John and Ken, the people behind Political Human Sacrifice, lean conservative/libertarian, but believe that this whole gay marriage issue is a wedge issue and distractor by the Republicans to avoid talking about real issues like the economy and illegal immigration. They have done a good job at ignoring the elephant in the bedroom until recently, and even then they only gave the story 30 minutes, clearly demonstrating to their conservative audience that they don't care what either candidate does in their bedroom, as long as they handle the issue of illegal immigration and oppose immigration amnesty.

To her credit, Matthews has deftly played the John and Ken audience by agreeing with them on getting reimbursement from the feds for illegal immigration costs in hospitals and jails, and opposing drivers licenses and Social Security Cards for illegal aliens, while spinning the issue to her pet immigration complaint, that of the H1B's.
posted by calwatch at 10:27 PM on September 25, 2004

By the way, it wasn't much of a secret for Matthews to come out. One of the first endorsements she had was from the Stonewall Democrats.

The anti-Dreier forces are at FireDreier.com and dojak.net.
posted by calwatch at 10:40 PM on September 25, 2004

jfuller has issues--the belittling and mocking is very catty--gay even.

Oh, for Christ's sake. That is so lame.
posted by y2karl at 7:58 AM on September 26, 2004

i thought it was funny. : >
posted by amberglow at 8:15 AM on September 26, 2004

very funny, and apt--how many bitchy comments should someone make before you say something about it? Slurring the other candidate's butch appearance/job, then talking about a homosexual v. homosexual catfight? come on.
posted by amberglow at 8:39 AM on September 26, 2004

If there's one thing the movement needs it's another homosexual-vs.-homosexual catfight. So liberating! Oh, the dignity!

I think you got this wrong. The liberation comes afterward, when we don't have anybody in office so desperate to hide their homosexuality that they align themselves with the extreme edge of the religious right.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:30 AM on September 26, 2004

I agree that the guy is an asshole, and I certainly wouldn't want to be his friend, but I just can't feel good about these serial outings. I just don't want to live in a world where outing someone is a weapon, for good or for ill.
posted by Hildegarde at 4:09 PM on September 26, 2004

If you watch TV news talk shows with anything remotely resembling regularity, you've almost surely seen him.

Oh. That would explain why I've never heard of him.

I'm nonetheless unimpressed. It's an elected official's job to represent his or her constituents, not to push a personal agenda based on his or her own lifestyle or preferences. If you don't like the work Dreier's done in office, maybe you should take it up with the people who continue to put him there.
posted by kjh at 4:24 PM on September 26, 2004

I agree that the guy is an asshole, and I certainly wouldn't want to be his friend, but I just can't feel good about these serial outings. I just don't want to live in a world where outing someone is a weapon, for good or for ill.

I don't feel good about it either. It shouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, it is. I'd rather live in this world than the one in which closeted gay people continue to stab the rest of us in the back.

It's an elected official's job to represent his or her constituents, not to push a personal agenda based on his or her own lifestyle or preferences. If you don't like the work Dreier's done in office, maybe you should take it up with the people who continue to put him there.

This is exactly what outing closeted gay politicians with anti-gay voting records does. There's not a lot we can do to change the minds of a bunch of Neanderthals in Dreier's district, after all. If he wants to continue representing his constituents, he can just tell them he's a member of the group they hate so much, but that he'll continue to vote the way he always has.

And this whole "personal agenda" line is bullshit. This isn't about lifestyle or preferences. It's about basic human rights that straight people take for granted.
posted by me & my monkey at 6:31 PM on September 26, 2004

I just don't want to live in a world where outing someone is a weapon, for good or for ill.
Outing is only a weapon when closet cases allow it to be--running in fear that the truth might get out. Otherwise it would be totally ineffective and not used.

And kjh, you have powerful people, in Dreier and Schrock, that are harming gay and lesbian lives all over this country, not just in their districts. They're pushing their party's national agenda--in Dreier's case, on tv and in Congress.
posted by amberglow at 6:32 PM on September 26, 2004

I just don't want to live in a world where outing someone is a weapon, for good or for ill.

And I don't want to live in a world where the Constitution is a weapon.
posted by archimago at 7:07 AM on September 27, 2004

Speaking for the majority of people in this country (those who oppose attempts to redefine marriage) we'd like to thank the gay community for helping us out. Ya'll keep outin' 'em, we'll keep running 'em out of office....
posted by darren at 7:55 AM on September 27, 2004

Ya'll keep outin' 'em, we'll keep running 'em out of office....

He was in the closet because he was voting *for* your agenda, genius.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:41 AM on September 27, 2004

But voters may well run them out of office, for misrepresenting themselves for so long, and leading people to think they were straight, and truly believed the agenda they were pushing, sponsoring, and voting for. If they walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, and vote like a duck, why wouldn't voters have thought they were a duck? Any voter is well within their rights to vote the guy out if they don't like it.
posted by amberglow at 8:50 AM on September 27, 2004

Phew. Dodged a bullet there. We almost had one of them queers re-elected.

Ya'll keep outin' 'em, we'll keep running 'em out of office.... Damn straight.

Seriously, this comment originally befuddled me, because Dreier was actually doing what Darren wanted, but after a bit I realized that it would be better for Darren if it twernt a homo doin' it.

Speaking for the majority of people in this country (those who oppose attempts to redefine marriage)
And who elected you anyway?
posted by hoborg at 1:36 PM on September 27, 2004