Comments on: Who's a worse threat than terrorism?

Who's a worse threat than terrorism?

amberglow — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:32:36 -0800

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.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:37:15 -0800

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.

By: bingbangbong

bingbangbong — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:38:15 -0800

Note to Democrat strategists: you're supposed to start the whisper campaign before the election.

By: kindall

kindall — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:42:25 -0800

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!

By: mss

mss — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:49:02 -0800

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.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:55:54 -0800

he's no Tom Cruise, that's for sure.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:01:46 -0800

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

By: fenriq

fenriq — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:04:53 -0800

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.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:14:19 -0800

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.

By: graventy

graventy — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:16:03 -0800

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.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:18:37 -0800

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.

By: a3matrix

a3matrix — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:21:01 -0800

This is sooo pre-election.

By: eriko

eriko — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:24:05 -0800

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....

By: grouse

grouse — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:24:26 -0800

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.

By: rocketman

rocketman — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:28:03 -0800

That dude totally looks like a fag.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:28:50 -0800

Funny you should use a McCarthy statement, grouse-- It's how Roy Cohn became famous. Many parallels.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:36:13 -0800

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.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:36:30 -0800

"Or take it to Meta." All righty then.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:44:46 -0800

> 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....

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:45:58 -0800

I don't care who sleeps with whom, so long as they don't lie about it. Wait...that sounds awfully familiar...

By: konolia

konolia — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:55:31 -0800

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????????

By: eriko

eriko — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:58:48 -0800

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.

By: ericrolph

ericrolph — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:09:52 -0800

Bush supports the anti-gay community no matter how you spin it.

By: rocketman

rocketman — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:11:22 -0800

and if he doesn't, well, then things get ugly. What, they won't help re-elect him in 2008?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:18:01 -0800

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

By: matteo

matteo — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:19:22 -0800

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.

By: matteo

matteo — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:20:30 -0800

oh, and the thought of konolia voting for Jack Anderson boggles the mind

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:24:23 -0800

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)

By: limitedpie

limitedpie — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:28:59 -0800

What, they won't help re-elect him in 2008? No, they won't help elect Jeb in 2008.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:32:41 -0800

Wah Wah Wah Waaaaaah.

By: eriko

eriko — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:34:22 -0800

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.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:39:36 -0800

(Steamboat sound.) oooo OOOOO.

By: wah

wah — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:44:04 -0800

Yes, "!?" ? What do you need? Aaah, simply a call out at the darkness. (<-ssp).

By: interrobang

interrobang — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:53:23 -0800

And here I thought the name was pronounced "roi".

By: ltracey

ltracey — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:53:48 -0800

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.

By: wah

wah — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:05:05 -0800

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.

By: dabitch

dabitch — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:24:01 -0800

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.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:31:39 -0800

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.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:42:15 -0800

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.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:00:45 -0800

So we're just collateral damage--and a distraction--for them?

By: interrobang

interrobang — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:14:46 -0800

Yup. All they desire is amoral power.

By: strangeleftydoublethink

strangeleftydoublethink — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:15:02 -0800

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.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:17:30 -0800

NY Gov Pataki's advisor slams Bush's fealty to the wingnuts in his party.. Oh, and the advisor is openly gay.

By: xammerboy

xammerboy — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:21:22 -0800

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?

By: interrobang

interrobang — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:50:30 -0800

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!

By: eatitlive

eatitlive — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:28:10 -0800

Pataki slammed his nuts where? Ouch.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:45:46 -0800

What's wrong with dogs? Or monkeys? Personally, I prefer cuttlefish.

By: anapestic

anapestic — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:09:29 -0800

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.

By: bas67

bas67 — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:53:14 -0800

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.

By: anapestic

anapestic — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:09:38 -0800

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.

By: lodurr

lodurr — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:02:09 -0800

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.

By: Seth

Seth — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:03:46 -0800

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.