It’s nobody’s business whether a politician is allegedly gay, whether they are a Republican or a Democrat.
Nor is there reason to assume allegations are true without proof.
Both sides should cut it out.
P.S. And, just as Democrats should be condemning the alleged outing of Larry Craig, conservatives should denounce this.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
Powered by WordPress.
Patterico:
Blackwell’s campaign is just barely on life support. In the RCP average, he’s down 23.5%!
When politicians get absolutely desperate, they do desperate — and despicable — things. What Blackwell has done is just as despicable as what Rogers did to Larry Craig. It’s just as despicable, but it’s at least explicable, because there is an actual election here, and the guy who ran these ads is being utterly crushed.
What struck me most about the Larry-Craig “outing” (if it’s even true) was its utter uselessness: Larry Craig isn’t even running this year. What was the point?
Dafydd
Dafydd (6e94cd) — 10/21/2006 @ 3:58 pmIt doesn’t matter…
Patrick Frey [calls on conservatives to condemn](https://patterico.com/2006/10/21/5295/enough-already/) Ken Blackwell’s Ohio gubernatorial campaign for publicizing accusations that Blackwell’s Democratic opponent is homosexual. I don’t have much to s…
The Shape of Days (b847db) — 10/21/2006 @ 4:05 pmThe point is that Republicans are all evil and bad because some of them like to have sex with other men.
Just like the point of those noxious GOP ads is that Democrats are all evil and bad because some of them don’t say the right things about terrorism.
Painting with a broad brush is stupid no matter who does it or what point they’re trying to make.
Jeff Harrell (6ef877) — 10/21/2006 @ 4:08 pmIn the last couple of days it has struck me that 4% of the population seems to pre-occupy 50% of the blogosphere at any given time. (The MSM too.) For my part, I cannot imagine how any gay issue, from either side or even the middle, has any bearing on a secure, prosperous America that we can be proud to leave to the next generation.
nk (2ab789) — 10/21/2006 @ 4:52 pmIsn’t more than passing strange that homosexuals are being “outed” by other homosexuals. It’s as if there might be something bad about being one.
Howard Veit (28df94) — 10/21/2006 @ 5:00 pmThey’re all for privacy and tolerance until there’s an election at stake. Mike Rogers is enough to make one homophobic, or rather mikerogersphobic.
AST (63d041) — 10/21/2006 @ 5:12 pmIgnoring it is at least as effective as denouncing it, and probably much more so.
fishstickhead (d90052) — 10/21/2006 @ 5:35 pmPatterico said:
Nor is there reason to assume allegations are true without proof.
You were pretty quick to assume the unproven allegations against Ted Kennedy are true.
As for gay politicians you don’t get to decide what criteria other people use to cast their votes. Lots of people consider being gay a negative character trait and it is their right to to consider this while voting. The media should report any news lots of people care about but they worry too much about being respectable.
[Did I assume the Kennedy allegations are true? Or did I say that it seemed like they were? The only person here who actually seemed to *assume* allegations to be true was you, with your assumption about the allegations re Craig. — P]
James B. Shearer (b1e59c) — 10/21/2006 @ 6:43 pm[…] Just got word via LC & IB Patterico that apparently a Republican candidate for governor in Ohio, Ken Blackwell, is taking out a page of Mike Nazi Rogers’ playbook: Ken Blackwell’s gubernatorial campaign today distributed harsh comments by radio talk show host Bill Cunningham related to Ted Strickland’s sexuality and about a former campaign aide arrested in 1994 for public indecency. […]
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » Enough of this Nonsense Already (502642) — 10/21/2006 @ 7:01 pmOn behalf of all conservatives/republicans for all time, I hereby denounce any bad behaviour by any conservatives/republicans.
So, now can we quit the calls for denouncing too?
not-masha (031f40) — 10/21/2006 @ 7:38 pmPatterico, your post about Kennedy said:
Did Sen. Tedward Melonhead Kennedy attempt to collaborate with the Soviets during the Cold War, with the goal of unseating an American president? It sure looks that way. …
Your “It sure looks that way” looks like a judgement that the allegations are probably true to me. I have never said that the allegations against Craig are probably true, just that if they are true then in my opinion they reflect adversely on Craig’s fitness to be a US Senator. The position of you and many of your commenters seems to be that even if Craig is having sex in public restrooms it should not be reported.
[Saying something looks like it’s true is different from *assuming* it is. Meanwhile, I’ll give readers a link to your previous comment and let them judge for themselves how conditional your approval of the Craig story was. — P]
James B. Shearer (b1e59c) — 10/21/2006 @ 8:09 pmOur esteemed host wrote:
Why isn’t it?
If you were to have looked at Jim McGreevey’s campaign literature, you’d have found out what a great family man he was, with a beautiful wife and small child. It was, of course, all a lie.
But while Mr McGreevey’s campaign was based on a huge lie concerning his personal life, think how many candidates put pictures of their smiling and loving families on their campaign literature and websites; almost every candidate brings it up himself, to the extent that if a candidate does not do so, people notice and ask questions.
You might not care if a candidate is single or married, heterosexual or homosexual, but a lot of other voters would — and it is the right of every voter to base his decisions on for whom to vote on whatever criteria he chooses.
The biggest problem that I have on this subject is that politicians are lying about themselves. Jim McGreevey lied about himself, to the very big extent of taking a wife and siring a child, all so he’d look “normal” to the voters of New Jersey. In doing so, he proved himself to be untrustworthy; unfortunately the voters didn’t find out about that until he installed an unqualified boyfriend in a state position.
If a politician takes the position that he won’t answer questions about his sexuality, and doesn’t care what people think, that, to me, is at least honest; it is not dishonest to refuse to answer a question, and people have a right to draw their own conclusions from such a refusal. I’d rather that homosexual candidates were honest and forthright about it, starting off their campaigns and possible public service on an honest footing.
None of the above means that I approve of either Mike Rogers’ or Ken Blackwell’s actions: they were scummy.
Dana (1d5902) — 10/22/2006 @ 6:48 am“It’s nobody’s business whether a politician is allegedly gay, whether they are a Republican or a Democrat.”
Sorry P, but no votes for a guy who takes it up the a**. If he’ll do that for fun, he’ll do it metaphorically when he’s under pressure.
Also, whatever gays do, it ain’t sex, it’s mutual masturbation, and no votes for wankers either.
BlacquesJacquesShellacques (83acf5) — 10/22/2006 @ 10:21 amWhat a bizarre comment — assuming you’re being serious.
So you consider someone’s sexual performance to be a valid metaphor for their likely behavior while in office?
I take it, then, that you would insist that each candidate film videos of himself or herself performing, so voters can see how the candidate will perform under pressure?
After all, a guy who ends things too early, or goes limp when the camera rolls, might do the same thing metaphorically under pressure . . .
Patterico (de0616) — 10/22/2006 @ 10:52 amBlackJackShellac (why do you French insist on those extra unpronounced letters?): If a Senator votes for a Right To Life Amendment and ten more armored divisions for the army, I could not care less if he sucks his thumb and sleeps with his teddy-bear. What exactly do we put them up there for? To be icons or to be bastards who tax us through the nose to pay for national defense, police, schools, highways, fire engines …? Dana is right in one sense — when I see a politician painting himself as a nice guy I think “that’s a nice sizzle but where’s the steak?” Give me a divorced ex-Hollywood actor, estranged from two of his children, who said, “Tear down that wall” over Ozzie any time.
nk (ca8012) — 10/22/2006 @ 12:22 pmP.S.: Jimmy Carter is, and has always been, a very good man personally. But he was a disaster as a President. JFK was a disaster in his marital life but a hero as President. LBJ was as manipulative an SOB of a politician as you can get but he did the job and he was the architect of the America we live in now. Nixon, who took us off the gold standard nad expanded the social safety net only built on LBJ’s foundation. The next hero was Reagan as I said above.
nk (ca8012) — 10/22/2006 @ 12:50 pmWhen Clinton lied under oath to conceal his tawdry little affair, he inadvertently spoke to a larger issue: blackmail.
A man willing to lie under oath about what was, in his case, an open secret anyway, and thereby knowingly risk his very presidency is probably willing to make other concessions to keep his secret, too. Look how far he was willing to go; just where were his limts?
I’ve wondered about this ever since he gave nuke technology to Madman Kim. I have zero proof and only speculation, but I do know that there’s just no way the North Koreans and the Chinese (hey, weren’t they right into the White House at the time?) and others would have missed such a golden opportunity to at least test the waters.
The same concern holds for a lot of the elected gays. If it’s really that important to them to keep their secret, then we must ask how far they’d go to protect it. And much as I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt, just cuz I’m a nice guy and cuz their private life should be none of my biz and cuz I really don’t care if they’re gay … I can’t shake the feeling that with nukes and suitcase nukes, anthrax and suicide bombers, and all the other Damoclean swords out there these days… is it a good thing that these other open secrets stay secret?
[The above in no way either diminishes or enhances the arg that it’s hypocrisy for the Left to decry on the Right what they themselves on the Left then gleefully practice. It’s a separate arg rooted in a different concern.]
ras (9485a6) — 10/22/2006 @ 2:07 pmDana is probably mostly right. Especially in wartime. It makes sense that guys in a Foley/McGreevey position could be reasonably seen as being more susceptible to blackmail. Fortunately, the uptight baby boomers who are proned to closeting themselves will all be dead in my lifetime, so this issue will resolve itself. Faster, please.
fishstickhead (d90052) — 10/22/2006 @ 3:48 pmUm, just to be clear, “faster, please” refers to the demise of the entire generation, not just those “who are prone to closeting themselves.” That would be singling them out unfairly.
fishstickhead (d90052) — 10/22/2006 @ 4:05 pm[…] I have stated previously that I believe that candidates for office have a duty to inform their constituents of their sexual orientation; in that, I have disagreed with other conservatives such as Patterico. However, while I believe a candidate should be, well, candid about this, the candidate who wishes to keep such information private does not bother me, if he doesn’t lie about it. The candidate who refuses to answer questions, who does not post family pictures which would imply a false heterosexuality on his campaign literature, is not lying about his orientation; the voters are free to draw whatever conclusions they wish concerning his refusal to answer. […]
Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archives » I’m very thankful that . . . (819604) — 10/22/2006 @ 6:02 pmI wonder how many gays are going to have their lives destroyed to get Barney Frank his chairmanship.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 10/23/2006 @ 12:01 am#15-My compliments, P. Well put.
I have lived, essentially, under presidents Clinton and Bush Jr. I’m not even old enough to remember much of Clintons presidency; accordingly, could one of you gents tell me why you think Reagan was such a good president, since you all sing his praises so often?
Leviticus (e87aad) — 10/23/2006 @ 1:22 pmnk: Blacques Jacques Shellacques, he eez not Franch, he eez a cartoon character, a Warner Brozzers character, similar to but better zan Yosemite Sam. Zee extra esses are for style, of which les Anglais ‘ave none.
P: I’m sorta serious. Gay guys have a tendency to die young, get deadly diseases and have torn up rectums. Makes me nervous. With a gay man you assume trouble; it’s the default position. Please do not tell me it’s wrong to believe that. I am not capable of holding in my head at the same time the concepts that gay behaviour leads to known serious health risks and that gay behaviour poses no risks.
The concept of anal penetration still drives many ‘normal’ men crazy. I once watched a junior hocky game in Fernie BC where a raucous Australian contingent sang “Kimberley takes it up the a**, dooh dah”. For two solid hours. To the tune of Camptown Races. With appropriate lyrics to match that refrain, as only Australians can. The refrain was screamed over and over. Did I mention they were drunk? I did, when I mentioned they were Australians at a hockey game.
Kimberley was completely rattled and lost the game handily.
BlacquesJacquesShellacques (83acf5) — 10/23/2006 @ 5:56 pmBlacquesJacquesShellacques: why do you assume trouble as the default position when considering gay men?
Please spell out the reasoning for me, as i’m a bit obtuse and can’t make the leap myself.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/23/2006 @ 6:00 pmOh come on, Blacques Jacques Shellacques, Comment #24. Like we don’t know what goes on in those north woods during those long winter nights. I’ve even heard it said that “the Mounties always get their man”.
nk (956ea1) — 10/23/2006 @ 6:07 pm#23 Leviticus
Being old enough to remember JFK, I understand as I’ve tried to convey why he was considered almost a saint in our house as I grew up. I expect that my parent’s generation had the same problem describing Eisenhower to us. For all JFK’s human faults, he (IMO) should be a source of pride for America and an example for politicians on both sides of the aisle. JFK believed in America first, last, and always.
Reagan was like that. He believed in America and the innate goodness of the American People and their way of life. His sincerity was manifest, whether you agreed with his politics or not. You can read all you want about Reagan, good and bad. Argue his policies and their effects for weeks on end. Debate his intelligence and understanding until you are blue in the face. Few can dispute that he believed in America first, last, and always. The loyalty of JFK and Ronald Reagan to the United States has earned (again, IMO) our loyalty to their legacy. Others may have different opinions, but that’s my own answer to your question.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/23/2006 @ 6:27 pmIt’s not the outing, it’s the hypocrisy. When you openly support measures and laws that hurt a group to which you currently belong, be it self-hatred or whatever makes them sleep at night, it’s hypocrisy, and it should be called out every. Single. Time.
mmm...lemonheads (efb843) — 10/24/2006 @ 11:13 amSo, would opposing affirmative action be, by definition “openly support measures and laws that hurt a group to which you currently belong” for a member of a minority group?
Or is it possible to conclude that affirmative action might, itself, be something hurts a group to which you currently belong?
Similarly, might it be possible to conclude that pushing, say, “marriage” as opposed to “civil unions” or some other term might actually hurt one’s ability to forge links to the other side?
Is horse-trading now hypocrisy for members of certain minority groups?
And at what point does my decision constitute hypocrisy to me, and at what point do you have a right to pass judgement on whether my vote is hypocritical?
Frex, is it hypocritical for a liberal to support drug laws if they partook in the past? Is it hypocritical for a liberal to support alternative energy laws, yet oppose a wind-farm within earshot of their home?
And what of the idea that, it’s not the hypocrisy, it’s the sex? If everyone lies about sex, is this outing not hypocritical, especially for those who believed that it’s nobody else’s business?
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 10/24/2006 @ 11:22 amLurking, if you don’t know what hypocrisy means I really can’t help you. The LGBT community, of which I am not a member, are fighting for certain basic rights. When a member of Congress, or anyone else for that matter considers themselves a member of that community, and simultaneously fights to deny rights to that said community, it’s hypocrisy. Not to mention politics of the nastiest persuasion. Stick your finger in the wind, and if your Red State district thinks it’s wrong you ride along, all the while living a lifestyle your “constituents” would find revolting. If you don’t agree with the rights being fought for step aside, as justices do. It’s called conflict of interest. But to actively be involved in the fight is hypocrisy. Say it with me now: hypocrisy.
mmm...lemonheads (efb843) — 10/24/2006 @ 11:41 amTo reiterate the point, what would you think of a black member of Congress actively lobbying to abolish the thirteenth and fifteenth amendments?
First you’d think he’s freakin’ nuts, then you would…
[Loaded question. Nobody is saying gays can’t vote or must be slaves. A better and more relevant question: if a black conservative casts a vote against affirmative action, is he a “hypocrite”? By your logic, he is. But I say he’s not. — P]
mmm...lemonheads (efb843) — 10/24/2006 @ 11:45 amAnd when exactly did he proclaim himself part of that group? Despite the fact that you ignore what he may feel is right, and assert he should go along with whatever the self-appointed spokespeople for the group say, just because someone is black doesn’t mean they consider themselves a member of the Black Panthers. You believe that it’s ok for you and others to decide what he is and how he should vote, typical of the Democrat’s view on individuals.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/24/2006 @ 2:44 pmSo, lemonheads, do you think that the folks who brought the Massachusetts “gay marriage” lawsuit helped or hurt their cause?
While I support gay marriage by any name (see my blog), I thought then that the move was extremely counterproductive as it was way too soon, the wrong method, and political suicide. I seem to have been proved right.
So, is doing really stupid things to “advance” a cause helpful? Is opposing those stupid things harmful?
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 10/24/2006 @ 3:00 pmI believe Blackwell has a good reason to question Strickland’s sexuality. The guy pleaded guilty to exposing himself in public? I don’t care how long ago it happened. Isn’t Strickland a psychologist who also supported the NAMBLA concept that young boys who were molested showed no long term problems?
alexandra2 (015be6) — 10/24/2006 @ 6:21 pmPlease, the voters need to know.
In terms of Foley? Obviously he needed to go because he was seeking out young pages.
If heterosexuals were behaving in sexually suspect ways, I would want to be made aware of this as well.
So, it appears it’s ok to expose heterosexual immorality but leave the homosexuals alone?
It was his campaign manager, NOT Strickland, alexandra2.
nk (47858f) — 10/24/2006 @ 6:34 pmok, Was it his campaign manager that is a psychologist who stated “that very young boys who were molested showed no long term problems”
Why would Strickland keep a campaign manager who was guilty of exposing himself in public?
I don’t believe the two points are unrelated
alexandra2 (015be6) — 10/24/2006 @ 8:28 pmAnd …if it’s true that Strickland took a trip to the islands with a 26 yr old guy…and Blackwell implies Strickland is a homosexual or bi-sexual, I think Blackwell knows what he’s talking about as do others in the political world.
The democrats opened this up for inspection…not the Republicans. Apparently all of Washington and Palm Beach knew or suspected Foley was married and and yet living the homosexual life too.
I personally don’t care if someone is hetero or homo as long as they are honest about it because if they do lie about it, they are as powerful people vulnerable to blackmail or “outing.”
I do, if anyone is interested, oppose homosexual “marriage” and the “homosexual or “diversity” training in gov’t schools.
alexandra2 (015be6) — 10/24/2006 @ 8:40 pmI pay tons of money for highly academic private schools so my children are not subjected to time away from Trig.or American History to celebrate “coming out” day. (Not to mention the very low standards of gov’t schools and generally incompetent teachers) Sorry, but it’s true.
Lemonheads, I responded to you . . . and you seem to have disappeared, as you sometimes do when you can’t answer a question.
In case you missed it because it was appended to your comment, here it is again.
You say:
To reiterate the point, what would you think of a black member of Congress actively lobbying to abolish the thirteenth and fifteenth amendments?
First you’d think he’s freakin’ nuts, then you would…
Loaded question. Nobody is saying gays can’t vote or must be slaves. A better and more relevant question: if a black conservative casts a vote against affirmative action, is he a “hypocrite”? By your logic, he is. But I say he’s not.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/24/2006 @ 10:44 pmYes,I agree with the above comment. By that logic as a woman I should support abortion.
alexandra2 (015be6) — 10/25/2006 @ 10:22 am“Why would Strickland keep a campaign manager who was guilty of exposing himself in public?”
Like I’ve said here before, “If you’ve got it, flaunt it”. Make the “him” “her” and you have me showing some real interest.
nk (f58916) — 10/25/2006 @ 5:59 pmIt can get even more disgusting, Patterico. Your spam filter has not been allowing hyperlinks lately but this piece from the Virginia Senatorial race is Drudge’s headline. http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaw.htm
nk (54c569) — 10/26/2006 @ 5:54 pmIt allowed it! Maybe it just doesn’t like the way I edit hyperlinks. 😉
nk (54c569) — 10/26/2006 @ 5:56 pmAnimal Sex Dog Girl Sex Animal Sex With Girl…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…
Animal Sex Dog Girl Sex Animal Sex With Girl (d82470) — 12/21/2007 @ 11:07 am