Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Who's a worse threat than terrorism?
November 11, 2004 4:32 PM   Subscribe

Outing Closeted Republicans, part 1,574 --Ken Mehlman, the leading contender to become the head of the RNC, and one of the architects of Bush's anti-gay election campaign, has some secrets, it appears. And it was supposed to come out during the convention: Two New York newspapers received calls from the Bush-Cheney campaign during the Republican National Convention urging them not to run a story suggesting that the campaign manager and public face of the campaign was gay, RAW STORY has learned.
posted by amberglow (51 comments total)

 
more at Americablog: 4. The GOP has made it perfectly clear that gays and lesbians and their relationships are a threat to the fabric of society. As American citizens and voters we have the right to know if Ken Mehlman's so-far-undisclosed relationships are posing such a threat or not. The last thing the GOP should be doing is giving a position of prominence in the party to someone who, for all we know, might have a secret agenda of undermining the family. They can't have it both ways.
posted by amberglow at 4:37 PM on November 11, 2004


Note to Democrat strategists: you're supposed to start the whisper campaign before the election.
posted by bingbangbong at 4:38 PM on November 11, 2004


I don't know if they're aware of this, but Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, and he hasn't disowned her yet!
posted by kindall at 4:42 PM on November 11, 2004


On a side note, this guy doing the spin during the last few weeks of the campaign had to be the most irritating spokesman they had. And he had a weird mouth.
posted by mss at 4:49 PM on November 11, 2004


he's no Tom Cruise, that's for sure.
posted by amberglow at 4:55 PM on November 11, 2004


Amberglow my friend, I love you dearly, so take this in the spirit intended, OK?

STOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPIT!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:01 PM on November 11, 2004 [1 favorite]


The linked article's title is "Race Under Way for Parties' Top Slots", am I the only one that snickered a little bit?

I'm sure there are some boys racing to get to Mehlman's (who's name almost looks like mailmen) "slot".

So, do I understand this correctly, its okay for them to have gay sex because they don't want to marry thier partners?

Well that clears that up altogether then.
posted by fenriq at 5:04 PM on November 11, 2004


What crash said.

I don't see how the Kitty Kelley stuff and the catty "Is he?" speculations do much for the quality of Metafilter.
posted by dhoyt at 5:14 PM on November 11, 2004


its okay for them to have gay sex because they don't want to marry thier partners?

It's ok to have gay sex, but you have to do a rosary afterwards and feel guilty about it.
posted by graventy at 5:16 PM on November 11, 2004


you know, there's a post about a movie (not) being shown on TV you two might want to take a look at. Or take it to Meta.

We have hypocrisy, media suppression, irony, etc. It's interesting, and it's on the web. It's also a big surprise not to the Bushes or their inner circles (who are well aware of who on their staff is gay or lesbian), but to a wider audience, who believed the demonization of gays and lesbians coming out of Mehlman's mouth.
posted by amberglow at 5:18 PM on November 11, 2004


This is sooo pre-election.
posted by a3matrix at 5:21 PM on November 11, 2004


And, hey. The People Have Spoke. There's a mandate against man dates, remember?

I think those who put Bush into the White House deserve to know when Bush is doing such unsavory and immoral things as nominating one of those gay people thingies. I mean, they put Bush there for a reason, right? Shouldn't they know what Bush does?

You reap what you sow, right? That's what the bible said. They've sown the wind....
posted by eriko at 5:24 PM on November 11, 2004


While I cannot take the time to name all of the men who have been named as homosexuals, I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were known to the Bush-Cheney campaign as being homosexuals.
posted by grouse at 5:24 PM on November 11, 2004


That dude totally looks like a fag.
posted by rocketman at 5:28 PM on November 11, 2004


Funny you should use a McCarthy statement, grouse-- It's how Roy Cohn became famous. Many parallels.
posted by amberglow at 5:28 PM on November 11, 2004


This is funny. I listen to this Christian Conservative radio station when NPR switches over to classical music, and right after the election, they started gloating like crazy.

Then, the next night, they started having Republican Party leaders on and sort of issuing threats to them. "We got you elected," they'd say. "You'd better listen to us."

In the past couple of days they have started a smear campaign against Arlen Specter because they think he's a "RINO"--a "Republican in Name Only". They're upset about the idea of him getting on the Judiciary Committee because he's "pro abortion".

They went from gloating to threatening and grandstanding to whining and demanding even more power in less than a week. I wonder what they'll have to say about this, if anything.
posted by interrobang at 5:36 PM on November 11, 2004


"Or take it to Meta."

All righty then.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:36 PM on November 11, 2004


> They've sown the wind....

And this is the whirlwind? Odd, my own theory was that Amber's strategy is to keep these guess-who's-queer-now posts going until the whole subject of gayness becomes utterly boring, like living in tract housing. It may be working, I ... am ... getting ... sleepy....
posted by jfuller at 5:44 PM on November 11, 2004


I don't care who sleeps with whom, so long as they don't lie about it.

Wait...that sounds awfully familiar...
posted by rushmc at 5:45 PM on November 11, 2004


Politics is politics, whether left or right or red or blue or GOP or DEM or Libertarian or Green Party or whatever.

I have been an active member of both the Democratic and Republican parties. My first ever presidential vote was for John Anderson (third party candidate back in 1980.)

CAN WE TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE????????
posted by konolia at 5:55 PM on November 11, 2004


And this is the whirlwind?

Just the start. Bush bent over backwards to the fundamentalists and evangelicals in this country, and they came out in spades to support him, and put him back into the White House.

And, now, they're demanding payback. They're already gunning for Specter. Wonder what other members of the GOP caucus they can chew up and spit out?

That's the whirlwind, sir. They will demand that Bush toe their version of the party line, period, full stop -- and if he doesn't, well, then things get ugly.
posted by eriko at 5:58 PM on November 11, 2004


Bush supports the anti-gay community no matter how you spin it.
posted by ericrolph at 6:09 PM on November 11, 2004


and if he doesn't, well, then things get ugly.

What, they won't help re-elect him in 2008?
posted by rocketman at 6:11 PM on November 11, 2004


If Bush can teach us anything, results don't actually matter anymore, it's all about packaging.


Therefore, the best thing to do would be for gay-rights groups to LOUDLY proclaim how much they like Mehlman because he could steer the discourse on gay-rights from the RNC. And if reporters ask why, well, isn't it obvious...?
--Pure genius--from the comments at Atrios
posted by amberglow at 6:18 PM on November 11, 2004


I don't see how the Kitty Kelley stuff and the catty "Is he?" speculations do much for the quality of Metafilter.

neither did cum stains on GAP dresses and illegally taped phone conversations, but American public life revolved around those for about 3 years

and yeah, the GOP played bareknuckled politics with the gays, they must expect a little payback, in form of a few outings. where's Michelangelo Signorile when you need him?

private lives of politicians aren't private anymore in post-Ken Starr America. fair game, everybody.
posted by matteo at 6:19 PM on November 11, 2004


oh, and the thought of konolia voting for Jack Anderson boggles the mind
posted by matteo at 6:20 PM on November 11, 2004


matteo, Signorile's site hasn't been updated in a while, but here's a relevant piece on Gay Repubs running from the press, from Sept. (Shrock, Dreier, Foley, and Mary all make appearances)
posted by amberglow at 6:24 PM on November 11, 2004


What, they won't help re-elect him in 2008?

No, they won't help elect Jeb in 2008.
posted by limitedpie at 6:28 PM on November 11, 2004


Wah

Wah

Wah

Waaaaaah.
posted by interrobang at 6:32 PM on November 11, 2004


What, they won't help re-elect him in 2008?

No, they won't help elect Jeb in 2008. They'll stay home.

On preview, what limitedpie said.
posted by eriko at 6:34 PM on November 11, 2004


(Steamboat sound.)

oooo

OOOOO.
posted by interrobang at 6:39 PM on November 11, 2004


Yes, "!?" ?

What do you need? Aaah, simply a call out at the darkness. (<-ssp).
posted by wah at 6:44 PM on November 11, 2004


And here I thought the name was pronounced "roi".
posted by interrobang at 6:53 PM on November 11, 2004


Look, Lee Atwater and Terry what's his face the Reagan fundraiser and Ken Mehlman and I'm sure innumerable other gay Repubs show us that Republicans will only care if you're gay if you're not helping them win. As long as you're willing to sell out your friends and exes and boyfriends, you're AOK with the GOP.

This is hypocrisy. Hypocrites are dangerous opportunists who have no qualms about selling out as long as it benefits them, and it doesn't matter who suffers for it. It is no way to live your life, and it's fucking A no way to run a country or international relations.

That's why this becomes important. The more one chips away at the smug, self-righteous stands of those who preach of morals, freedom and rightness to the detriment of those who have less or those who differ in opinion or worldview, the more likely the truth will rise to the surface.

And the truth is ugly, but it must be revealed.
posted by ltracey at 6:53 PM on November 11, 2004


roi = return on investment. I first heard the other pronunciation during a hockey game.

Yes, it can be a profound return. That's...the argument.
----
So yea, they are definitely going to be trying to get the antt-abortion (murder) stuff passed. It will keep the people riled-up enough to miss the rest of the more profound changes they wish to push through.

The one I am most uncomfortable with is the SS one. The idea of paying taxes to corporations turns my stomach. If we cannot trust our government to look out for our best interests...why are we trusting those with a mandate to defraud the foolish?

Ahh, it makes so sense. You must acquit.
posted by wah at 7:05 PM on November 11, 2004


thought the thread was saved by the Roy Cohn link. I had no idea that Al Pacinos character Angels in America was that closely based on a real person.
posted by dabitch at 7:24 PM on November 11, 2004


Cohn was a very very real person who did enormous damage his whole life to people who shared his sexuality and religion--in service to those in power--and very applicable to Mehlman.
posted by amberglow at 7:31 PM on November 11, 2004


Bush bent over backwards to the fundamentalists and evangelicals in this country, and they came out in spades to support him, and put him back into the White House.

People keep repeating this but it's not true. Their percentage of his vote was exactly the same as it was the last time. The wealthy, on the other hand, the Haves and Have Mores, voted for Bush in substantially larger numbers. He called them his base and, by God, they are.

Money Matters

For all the talk of how religious voters made Bush's victory possible, their performance didn't change from 2000 to 2004. Four years ago, those attending church once a week or more were 42 percent of the electorate and gave Bush 59 percent of their vote--for a performance of 25 percent (that is, 42 percent multiplied by 59 percent). In 2004, these voters were 41 percent of the electorate and gave Bush 61 percent of their votes, for a performance of 25 percent--no change from 2004.

By contrast, Bush improved his performance with voters at the upper end of the income ladder. Among those making less than $50,000, Bush actually lost ground, as his performance fell from 21 percent in 2000 to 20 percent in 2004. Among those making over $50,000, Bush's performance jumped 3 points, from 28 percent to 31 percent. And most of this improved performance was concentrated among the wealthiest of voters, those making over $100,000. In this group, increases in turnout and support for Bush raised the president's performance from 8 percent to 10 percent. In fact, Bush's gains among the wealthiest Americans account for a good chunk of his popular-vote margin of victory...

Perhaps then, it was no coincidence that at his press conference the day after declaring victory, Bush said little of interest to social conservatives and instead spoke of revising the tax code and privatizing Social Security, two measures likely to appeal to upper-income voters. Bush seems to understand who reelected him--even if his critics on the left and the wishful thinkers to his cultural right do not.

posted by y2karl at 8:42 PM on November 11, 2004


So we're just collateral damage--and a distraction--for them?
posted by amberglow at 9:00 PM on November 11, 2004


Yup. All they desire is amoral power.
posted by interrobang at 9:14 PM on November 11, 2004


Unless it can be proven that this guy had sex with a monkey, thus starting the AIDs epidemic, or that he wants to marry his dog, it's just not gonna get any attention.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 9:15 PM on November 11, 2004


NY Gov Pataki's advisor slams Bush's fealty to the wingnuts in his party.. Oh, and the advisor is openly gay.
posted by amberglow at 9:17 PM on November 11, 2004


I can't say that I like this, but if there were a party trying to take away your right to marry, say because you were Irish. And let's suppose that in that same party were a lot of Irish, wouldn't you want to point that out?
posted by xammerboy at 9:21 PM on November 11, 2004


FUCK THOSE DRUNKS! WANT TO MARRY, DO THEY? NO WAY THOSE POTATO EATING RED-HAIRS ARE GETTING MY TAX-DOLLARS TO MARRY AND DRINK AND HAVE SEX!
posted by interrobang at 9:50 PM on November 11, 2004


Pataki slammed his nuts where?

Ouch.
posted by eatitlive at 12:28 AM on November 12, 2004


What's wrong with dogs? Or monkeys?

Personally, I prefer cuttlefish.
posted by loquacious at 12:45 AM on November 12, 2004


There are (at least) two issues going on here. Hypocrisy clearly undermines any position, and if the people who are in charge of the gay bashing are gay, then their political opponents have a right to point that out.

But where's the evidence here? All that you have is a refusal of someone to deny for the record. That person may have perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting to go on the record about Mehlman's sexuality. For example, if he denies the rumors on the record about Mehlman, then he has to deny them about other people, including, say, GOP Congressmen whose orientation is well known but not acknowledged. If there's affirmative evidence that Mehlman is gay, then let a reporter present it. If what's in the link is the best they've got, it's irresponsible journalism.
posted by anapestic at 6:09 AM on November 12, 2004


But where's the evidence here? All that you have is a refusal of someone to deny for the record. That person may have perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting to go on the record about Mehlman's sexuality.

I'm with you on this point, but why does Mehlman refuse to say one way or the other? I have never in my life known a straight person who would not comment on whether they were gay or straight.

In a perfect world I would say " Who gives a crap!". But as a lesbian who lives in the south and has to watch her every move in public so as not to offend any one, the "GOP Gaybashing" is very personal to me.
posted by bas67 at 6:53 AM on November 12, 2004


I'm with you on this point, but why does Mehlman refuse to say one way or the other?

There are a couple of possibilities that I can think of offhand. A denial really doesn't put any rumors to rest, but it gives someone a story. Then a reporter might write "Mehlman Denies Being Gay." Well, now all the people who hadn't heard the rumors have heard about them, and some people who had never even considered that he might be gay will think that he is, based on the denial and the rumors. Without a statement from the subject of the investigation, it's harder to write a story. After all, what we have here is a couple of online stories who claim that big NYC papers were asked to keep a story under wraps. I can't imagine the Times doing that if they had a solid story.

The other possibility, of course, is that he's gay. But you need more than a non-denial to assume that. And you'd think that if he were gay, a reporter would be able to get solid evidence of that.
posted by anapestic at 7:09 AM on November 12, 2004


I don't see how the Kitty Kelley stuff and the catty "Is he?" speculations do much for the quality of Metafilter.

Excessive emphasis on the "quality of Metafilter" is likely to accomplish no goal so surely as ensuring the ultimate irrelevance of Metafilter to the lives we lead and the world in which we lead them.
posted by lodurr at 9:02 AM on November 12, 2004


Another quality contribution from amberglow! Good job!
Could you maybe just make one post and accuse everyone of being gay thereby eleminating your need to hope speculate that so-and-so is gay?

And besides, what does saying he is gay accomplish? Should be ashamed? Maybe his is gay and he doesn't like shoving his sexuality down everyone's throat..... or something. Maybe you could learn a lesson from these people who keep their private lives to themselves?


Here is where the familiar chorus chimes in.
posted by Seth at 12:03 PM on November 12, 2004


« Older Athletes... Steroids... blah blah blah.. Only this...  |  Jack the Ripper: the most comp... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments