Comments on: He declined further comment on the wedding

He declined further comment on the wedding

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:09:39 -0800

The Wedding of Roy Cohn's spiritual heir (or one of them anyway) was celebrated in Massachusetts in December, and revealed yesterday. The groom, an influential political consultant who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal did not invite any of the people he helped bring to power, often on an anti-gay platform. In fact, he didn't even tell any of them (the list includes Jesse Helms and many many more). The happy couple, together for 40 years (since the groom was 19), live in Ipswich, MA with their 2 children. No information on the other groom was provided, nor on honeymoon arrangements.
(More on Finkelstein, "The Godfather of dirty politics", here.)

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:15:21 -0800

a little more here, and a messed-up 1996 CNN article on him here: Arthur Finkelstein: Out Of Sight But In Control

By: Nelson

Nelson — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:24:37 -0800

Where did they register? Are there photos of the happy couple? Apparently not, other than this only known photo. At least those kids can finally be legitimate.

By: ericb

ericb — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:26:54 -0800

Ah, Arthur Finkelstein - the notorious hypocrite who lives here in his estate on the North Shore of Boston. An October 1996 Boston Magazine story on Mr. Finkelstein "outed" him as living with his gay partner and sharing custody of two adopted children. In the article ("The Secret Life of Arthur J. Finkelstein") journalist Stephen Rodrick reported: "He has become a millionaire by working for politicians whose policies attack a very important and intimate part of his life," Rodrick writes, "Specifically, four of Finkelstein's clients in the Senate - Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Bob Smith of New Hampshire, Don Nickles of Oklahoma and North Carolina's Lauch Faircloth - form the core opposition to nearly all gay issues before Congress." In response to the article Finklestein issued a statement: "I keep my private life separate from my business life-something my friends and clients understand, appreciate and respect." Such hypocrisy! BTW - click here for registration-free access to the NYT's article.

By: twsf

twsf — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:31:03 -0800

There is a special circle in Inferno reserved for hypocritical madmen like Finkelstein.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:35:01 -0800

This was rich, too: ... And, you can add one more element to Finkelstein's reality; he is gay, yet he's worked for a gaggle of gay-bashing Republican Senators ... all of whom voted against legislation banning discrimination against gays while Finkelstein was working for them. ... Finkelstein is also Jewish, but that didn't stop him from using anti-Semitism during a 1978 South Carolina congressional race between Republican Carroll Campbell and Democrat Max Heller. ...
Finkelstein told Maariv that he was troubled by the strategy of dividing the country by "values of religion and culture."

By: ericb

ericb — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:40:06 -0800

There is a special circle in Inferno reserved for hypocritical madmen like Finkelstein. Roy Cohn is already there. Other recent hypocrites like Congressman David Dreier and pseudo-jounalist/blogger/hustler James/Jeff Gannon/Guckert will be joining Cohn and Finkelstein there at some point in the future.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:42:08 -0800

and Mehlman and Shrock and Foley and....

By: growabrain

growabrain — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:47:36 -0800

There surely are more gay liberals than conservatives, but there are still many stories circulating about closeted & outed cabin-log republicans. For the life of me, I cannot understand the twisted mindset of the 'gay republican'

By: wfrgms

wfrgms — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:48:20 -0800

*head explodes*

By: vhsiv

vhsiv — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:49:29 -0800

Not meant as a threat, but is there any way of bussing some of those ex-Helms Dixiecrats up to Boston, you know, for a little 'awareness' meeting on the sidewalk outside of Finkelstein's multi-million dollar home? Y'know, there probably aren't enough dog stools in his gated community - or open sewers.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:52:21 -0800

oh, speaking of Log-Cabin Republicans, they have some strange bedfellows as well--USANext, of the anti-gay ad with 2 guys kissing--supposedly against AARP. This Finkelstein, and others, wouldn't even dare associate themselves with the Log-Cabin fools. It would jeopardize their entire careers.

By: telstar

telstar — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:52:43 -0800

gay republicans: since they're republican, their gayness doesn't count to other republicans. Which stems from the republicans 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of another republican."

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:57:17 -0800

...their gayness doesn't count to other republicans. telstar, then why did Finklestein not even tell the people he's worked with for years? Why didn't he invite even the more moderate ones like Pataki? Or their staffers? Doesn't that tell you something? Why did he hide this--it happened in December, you know. Apparently it does count, to Finklestein, or he thought it would count to all those people.

By: dontoine

dontoine — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:58:28 -0800

One of Mr. Finkelstein's associates, who declined to speak on the record, citing Mr. Finkelstein's desire for privacy, said Mr. Finkelstein did not view his marriage as a political statement and had specifically decided to have a civil ceremony rather than a religious one. Are civil ceremonies less political than religious ones?

By: dontoine

dontoine — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 12:00:39 -0800

Man date mandate.

By: PinkStainlessTail

PinkStainlessTail — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 12:12:41 -0800

It's always good (for certain values of "good") to get a reminder that in the end this whole movement has nothing to do with religion and morality and everything to do with control and power.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 12:31:14 -0800

When the right's power is absolute,the first thing they will do is kill all the Finkelsteins.--a comment at Digby (Was Ken Mehlman The Maid Of Honor?) on this It's so true--why would people work to ensure their own destruction/continued second-class status/denial of rights? Would the association save them? Is that what they think? Would their money save them? (Did it save anyone during WW2?)

By: telstar

telstar — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 12:31:56 -0800

amberglow, what I mean is that republicans are blind to whatever might be perceived as a fault in another republican. For example, I have been involved in discussions about Roy Cohn in which right-wingers simply deny that Cohn was gay. Finkelstein didn't announce he was gay because gay is a bad thing to be if one is republican. But now that Finkelstein has been outed, the republican mind-set will simply switch to denial (see: Guckert). If this sounds like cognitive dissonance, well....it is.

By: ericb

ericb — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 12:40:54 -0800

It's always good (for certain values of "good") to get a reminder that in the end this whole movement has nothing to do with religion and morality and everything to do with control and power. Well put! Let's use wedge issues, fear, outrage, etc. as diversions to what this is really all about.

By: ericb

ericb — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 12:59:59 -0800

Apt comment from AMERICAblog - "Finkelstein and Mary Cheney should get together and go bowling...They have both come out on top on the backs of others not so fortunate to live where they do and/or have the money to supercede the regulations against them..." (Ms. Julien in Miami)

By: Rothko

Rothko — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:09:59 -0800

We know already that these conservatives are evil hypocrites. They are parasites who take advantage of the benefits of our struggle for normalcy, while fighting it at the same time for their ideological ends. So I wonder: What can be learned from this? Beyond bitching, what can be done? What can we do to turn this around and make things right?

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:15:45 -0800

I always confuse Roy Cohn with Ray Combs.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:20:39 -0800

Well, Rothko, publicizing that the very people pushing to deny us rights (and those getting them elected), and using our lives for political purpose, are actually living those very same lives themselves may open some eyes. If nothing else, if this kind of publicity leads to him getting fewer jobs from hateful politicians, it's doing good. I wonder how this got out, and why now instead of in December?

By: gesamtkunstwerk

gesamtkunstwerk — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:45:28 -0800

This guy's pretty souless. I can appreciate that a gay person could be conservative to a point, but to exploit homophobia and anti-Semitism is playing with fire. Ericb-- I think Mary Cheney will be joining that little circle in Hell, too. I hope she's the only woman.

By: alms

alms — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:18:26 -0800

The New York Times is now reporting on Finkelstein's $10,000,000 fundraising drive to take down Hillary Clinton. This is just bizarre. It's like the guy is traveling around the village collecting wood and kerosene for the mob that wants to burn him and his husband at the stake.

By: ericb

ericb — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:33:31 -0800

The New York Times is now reporting on Finkelstein's $10,000,000 fundraising drive to take down Hillary Clinton. A registration-free link to the article is here: "But Republicans familiar with the [Stop Her Now] project said that Mr. Finkelstein is just weeks away from publicly launching the committee, having established a Web site and put a direct-mail operation in place." BTW - stophernow.com and stophernow.org are registered to:

John Smith emstotb@yahoo.com PO Box 4487 Grand Central Station New York, NY 10163 212.753.0605

By: ericb

ericb — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:37:15 -0800

stophernow.net is still available. It could make for an interesting website dedicated to parodying Mr. Finkelstein.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:08:19 -0800

I paraphrase from Angels in America: Roy Cohn: This is what a label refers to. Now to someone who does not understand this, homosexual is what I am because I have sex with men. But really this is wrong. Homosexuals are not men who sleep with other men. Homosexuals are men who in fifteen years of trying cannot get a pissant antidiscrimination bill through City Council. Homosexuals are men who know nobody and who nobody knows. Who have zero clout. Does this sound like me?' Doctor: You have AIDS, Roy. Cohn: No, Henry, no. AIDS is what homosexuals have. I have liver cancer.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:12:06 -0800

I wonder if Roy Cohn would have married his lover if he was around today--i bet not, but who knows?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:20:36 -0800

And--who did Finkelstein marry? why's it a secret? isn't it supposed to be part of the public record?

By: stratastar

stratastar — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:50:29 -0800

" Mr. Finkelstein had identified himself as a libertarian and an opponent of big government," all the while helping to create a party that not only single handedly increases the size of governement, but gains power on the promise of denying rights to individuals... does anyone else want to jump 100 years in the future and read about this era in the history books?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:52:39 -0800

if this era has its way, there won't be history books in 100 years. : <

By: ericb

ericb — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:57:47 -0800

if this era has its way, there won't be history books in 100 years. Ah, but some are counting on that it is only History that is the definition of relevance in 100 years!

By: warbaby

warbaby — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:09:01 -0800

Only Republicans get to make accusations of double standards. Non-Republicans are explicitly forbidden to make double standard arguments. "Smokey, this isn't Nam. This is bowling. There are rules." - Walter in The Big Lebowsky

By: HTuttle

HTuttle — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:52:04 -0800

No party is ALL this or ALL that, some folks have comprehension beyond sound-bite-itis, but not here I see.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 22:02:24 -0800

HTuttle--read the GOP platform. It spells out in clear English, that the GOP is indeed ALL that when it comes to equal rights and gay marriage. I'm not sure what it says about gay couples adopting children, but you can tell me after you read it. And read all the campaign literature for all the GOP politicians that this guy helped get into office. Comprehension we have in spades. Hypocrisy and double standards--one set for us, one set for them-- they have in spades.

By: BoringPostcards

BoringPostcards — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 23:47:43 -0800

HTuttle writes " No party is ALL this or ALL that, some folks have comprehension beyond sound-bite-itis, but not here I see." The party in question just changed the constitution of my home state to make sure I don't get too uppity... my partner of 16 years and I will remain "single" in the eyes of the state from now till all these assholes are dead, I guess. The fact that we also own my mom's home, and basically support her, probably won't matter if I should die before he does. My mom and my partner will be considered unrelated, my partner will suddenly owe a HUGE amount of taxes on his own home (a nasty fluke of Georgia law concerning "unrelated" people who own property together), and they will be left not only figuring out how to bury me, but how not to lose their respective homes to the tax man. This would be a non-issue if my partner and I were married. So you'll forgive me for thinking "The GOP hates gay people" as not being "sound-bite-itis."

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:18:41 -0800

Oh really? Fits right in with classic Republican "I've got mine -- Fuck You!" politics.--good rundown from David E.'s fablog

By: aeschenkarnos

aeschenkarnos — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:49:23 -0800

BoringPostcards: It's well worth the three of you talking it all over with a good contract/trust lawyer - you may be able to set a situation up such that the house becomes owned by a trust that all three of you are directors of. Remember, for each law they establish that unfairly disadvantages a poor minority, the Republicans also establish a law that unfairly advantages a rich minority, and the rich own their homes.

By: TrinityB5

TrinityB5 — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:57:22 -0800

He really is a 'godfather': it's been said that Karl Rove learned his dirty tricks from this scumbag...

By: hincandenza

hincandenza — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:57:23 -0800

Finklestein, you won't get his money. And you'll never make him regret what he's done by pointing out he's a hypocrite. But see, he does have kids! Perhaps a campaign could be started to get his children removed from him, seeing as he's a fucking faggot, who shouldn't be raising children. (so sayeth 51% of my countrymen). So fuck 'em. That'd be funny, watching the little brats scream as daddy waves goodbye for the last time. Maybe after that, Arthur will have some time in that big empty house in Ipswich to reminisce on his life's work. And if that doesn't work... find out where his kids go to school, and do everything in your power to get all the other kids turned against them- pay cold hard cash to the worst bullies, the heathers, whomever you can, to taunt, tease, torment, even torture. Once that snowball gets going... well, kids can be mighty cruel- cruel enough that one of those Finklestein kiddies might just off themselves when they're tired of dealing with it. And when that happens, you bus in Fred Phelps to picket the little shit's funeral. Arthur, meet Fred. Fred, meet Arthur. My point is that ALL politics is personal. That's one thing liberals need to understand: politics is not a game, it's real life, with real consequences. If you fully understand that, you understand that it's not about "playing the game fair", it's about getting society to be the way you imagine it. No point in going all "Barton Fink" in the face of the next Reich. And if that means bashing the fudgepacking, hypocritical fucks like Finklestein and his precious little adoptee kids, then that's what it'll take. Because after a few Finklesteins have some front-page tragedy, those who also would help them might step back and rethink their choices in life.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:43:55 -0800

Wouldn't his cocoon of money and power--and ready access to those he put into power--prevent any of those things from happening, hin? (setting aside the moral question of harming innocents to get to their parents, of course)

By: mooncrow

mooncrow — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:32:05 -0800

Isn't this a case of someone who really, REALLY deserves to finally meet up with that old maxim: he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword? I mean, if anyone deserves to be destroyed politically by the very dirty tricks and chicanery he has used for years, isn't this the MAN? Jesus wept.

By: Uccellina

Uccellina — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:57:57 -0800

*sputter* *fume* *unintelligible cursing*

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:35:04 -0800

Bill Clinton even commented on him today: "Either this guy believes his party is not serious and is totally Machiavellian in his position or there's some sort of self-loathing there," Clinton said. "I was more sad for him.

By: Snyder

Snyder — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:26:22 -0800

Torturing the kids of your political and ideological enemies! Yes! The sins of the father and all that. I'm not sure why you stopped at that, though, I mean, burning down his house and killing him and his family as they flee is probably easier and more efficient.