Another Outing
There’s been another outing. This time, it’s the guy who wrote the Stop Sex Predators blog. Allah reports and puts it perfectly:
Turns out he’s a nonpartisan activist who’s been studying pedophiles for years, and whose research has led to the arrest of no fewer than two dozen child molesters.
Nah, just kidding. He’s a former Democratic staffer.
I’ll answer the inevitable questions before it comes: does this make it wrong for Foley to have been exposed? Not if he was going after under-age kids. Still, it’s good to have the full picture — and to know that, despite what the papers say, Republicans aren’t the only folks engaged in “opposition research.”
You can’t trust what you read on Hot Air, dude. Everyone knows that.
Allah (bab333) — 10/28/2006 @ 10:24 ami’d never heard of lane hudson before, but if he’s the guy who exposed foley, i’ll give him a high five, straight, gay or bestial.
assistant devil's advocate (d14d04) — 10/28/2006 @ 11:40 amjust read an article in today’s los angeles times about the republicans smearing two female central valley assembly candidates with lesbian innuendoes. i laugh when republicans whine about the ethics of outing people.
i am saddened that a determinative number of voters might determine their votes on the sexuality of the candidates. i can think of several more important issues. if these voters don’t wise up and sophisticate themselves pronto, the outlook for our society is bleak. ten years from now, campaign commercials will be parsing masturbation techniques.
But I think we’ve determined he wasn’t…quite.
Whether he was dabbling in jailbait or not, the guy was a creep who was using the page program he was in charge of to cultivate boytoys like seamonkeys. He needed to go. It’s a shame the House didn’t edge him out before this hit in an election year (and no, I don’t believe there was a coverup) but hey, good riddance.
See Dubya (9f0200) — 10/28/2006 @ 11:47 amAssistant Devil’s Advocate,
I agree that Foley should have been outed … uh, exposed … I mean revealed … oh, you know what I mean. But what if Lane Hudson or whoever knew about this for months and months while waiting to out Foley during an election? If so, I think Mr. Hudson’s nobility is questionable.
DRJ (1be297) — 10/28/2006 @ 12:12 pmADA, the difference is that Democrats claim that they care so much for gays and want to give them special rights and priviliges and they make a huge deal out of privacy issues. Democrats protect gays like a momma bear protects her cubs –unless the gay person is a Republican. Then let the wolves have ’em.
The point is that Democrat talking points imply that they care so much for people, they are such good guys. But they don’t really care about gays, or Jews, or blacks, or children or poor people unless there is some political benefit in doing so. If gays vote for Democrats and send them lots of money money then the Democrat machine will go to the most ridiculous extremes to attack anyone who critices them, even if they do like 17-year-old pages. But if a gay man supports gun control and likes 17-year-old pages, it’s off with his head and every other Republican who ever shook hands with the evil monster.
Similarly, if Democrats get lots of votes from women for being all teary-eyed about about THE CHI-I-I-ILDREN, then they love kids. If they get more money for supporting abortion, then go ahead and poke a hot needle into the little tyke’s head before pulling the corpse out of his mother’s womb.
The Democrat machine (by which I mean the party plus MSM plus organizations such as NAACP) is in many ways nothing but a huge protection racket. Cross them and they kill you. Support them and they kill your enemies.
The Republicans, by contrast, don’t just make shit up –or not nearly as much, anyway. When a Republican says that he opposes terrorism, he’s going to oppose all terrorism, even if the terrorists are abortion-clinic bombers. When a Democrat says that he opposes terrorism, he only means terrorism commited by those other guys. Terrorism committed by communists or extreme environmentalists or, actually, just about anyone who hates America, is excusable.
And that’s the point about this gay outing. The Republicans don’t go all hysterical about gay outings, they just think it’s a bit regrettable that people in politics can’t have private lives. By contrast, if a Democrat gets outed for political reasons, the Democrats go into shark attack mode, screaming about homophobia and civil rights. But when a Republican gets outed for political reasons, well, he had it coming. No issue of homophobia or civil rights here. Democrats don’t really care about gays; they only care about Democrats.
Doc Rampage (4a07eb) — 10/28/2006 @ 12:14 pmDoc Rampage……you are spot on…….the only problem is that leftists, libertarians and “centrists” are unable to distinguish the facts as you lay them out, and will continue to give Democrats a pass.
senorlechero (360f45) — 10/28/2006 @ 12:59 pmPat, have you seen this?
CraigC (9cd021) — 10/28/2006 @ 2:17 pmIf Foley hadn’t been running for re-election, he’d never have been exposed.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 10/28/2006 @ 7:42 pmNow, when do we find out that Hudson was involved with Foley’s activities? He obviously had some inside connection to have all those emails and whatnot.
Or maybe the Senate Dems have hacked the House email system. This really bears investigation.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 10/28/2006 @ 7:46 pmI don’t think anyone is against Foley’s exposure (well, except a few of the partisan Republican Kool-Aid guzzlers) and I don’t even think anyone really cares that he was exposed primarily for political gain.
What bothers people – well, me – is the possibility that the aforementioned former Democratic staffer may have HELD that information for a while – and waited to release it specifically for electoral politics.
Frankly, if a liberal/Democrat actually ignored his own information for a while … I think he’s worse than Hastert, even if all of the accusations are true.
In other words, if Foley was exposed to protect the underage kids – and with the side benefit of helping partisan Democrats – fine. He deserves it.
But if the Democrats put politics over protecting kids – and THEN pulled the holier-than-thou crap after WAITING to release the information – than they’re as bad as Foley himself. Worse, even. A kid could have literally been violated because those dolts were playing politics.
I *hope* the kids were the Democrats first priority. But I’m not convinced.
Professor Blather (c65bfa) — 10/28/2006 @ 8:45 pmI want to know more about Jeff Trandahl.
DRJ (1be297) — 10/28/2006 @ 8:46 pm“i laugh when republicans whine about the ethics of outing people.”
I laugh when Democrats say sex is private and shouldn’t be discussed politically.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/29/2006 @ 5:21 amSpeaking of laughing… Isn’t it neat how the Dems are concerned that the black vote may not turn up at the polls in big enough numbers because of disillusionment over past shenanigans.
Add to that the fact that Dems think voter photo ID is a bad thing!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/us/politics/27race.html?ex=1319601600&en=35a67ad74f87bc9e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
krusher (5bd6ba) — 10/29/2006 @ 8:03 amFor those who may have missed it, Lane Hudson is a former Democratic staffer for Fritz Hollings, but his most recent job was with the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay lobby doing business as a 501(c)(4).
Hudson created and operated the blog stopsexpredators.blogspot.com from his HRC office, and it is obvious to anyone capable of ten minutes’ investigation that it’s sole function was to out Foley.
The first “email” he “received”, supposedly from an “intern”, is obviously manufactured, and since the blog didn’t exist until three days AFTER that “email” is supposedly dated, how could the “scared young intern” know of it to email his fears to the blog? Aside from that, a page wouldn’t call himself an intern, and intern is the term used in this introductory “email”.
Now, our choice is to believe that Hudson acted alone in fabricating this blog, getting his hands on the Foley emails/IMs, or that he was working under orders.
Of course once the blog was traced to the HRC offices they had to cut him free, but I would be curious where Hudson lands next, and would sure like to know how much of a severance check he got for his work.
Freelancer (f99e36) — 10/29/2006 @ 10:06 amThe American Civil Liberties Union on Friday dropped a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the USA Patriot Act.
You know what this means .. it is all out war on nativity scenes from coast to coast.
Neo (cba5df) — 10/29/2006 @ 10:40 amThe truth of the matter is everyone in Beltway — the “mianstream” included — knew that Foley was gay, st as they know that David Drier and Ken Mehlman are gay.
They just “choose” to “protect” them.
The Human Rights Campaign and the NLGTF are the “House Niggers” of the gay rights movement.
They are of no use to America’s same-sex ireunted citizens. In fact they are an active hindrance.
David Ehrenstein (98bf99) — 10/29/2006 @ 4:09 pmin re: Doc Rampage,
I would certainly agree with you that the Democrats are a bunch of slimey devils, who blatantly exploit others to further their own projects. However, I would argue that the Republicans are the same way. no better, no worse.
“When a Democrat says that he opposes terrorism, he only means terrorism commited by those other guys. Terrorism committed by communists or extreme environmentalists or, actually, just about anyone who hates America, is excusable.”
-Doc Rampage
The same way terrorist acts committed by various Latin American governments under Reagan were perfectly acceptable, as long as they were directed towards our political enemies. It’s a double-edged sword, and both parties are equally guilty.
Leviticus (43095b) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:41 amCool, looks like I can post again (I was having problems with the spam filter).
Just made everyone’s day.
Leviticus (43095b) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:43 am“It’s a double-edged sword, and both parties are equally guilty.”
Guilty of putting America’s interests first? Uhhh, ok.
nk (47858f) — 10/30/2006 @ 12:12 pmA demacrat who molests kids what a feind what a scoundrel and probibly a liberal with SAVE THE WHALES SAVE THE REDWOODS SAVE THE RAINFORESTS SAVE THE SPOTTED OWL bumper stickers
krazy kagu (614414) — 10/30/2006 @ 12:46 pmLeviticus wrote: “The same way terrorist acts committed by various Latin American governments under Reagan were perfectly acceptable,”
*******
Leviticus, by definition, state-sponsored acts committed by soldiers representing a government are ‘military’ actions, rather than ‘terrorist’ acts.
A terrorist is someone who does not represent a state, and does not identify himself (i.e., lack of uniform) as a combatant.
Desert Rat (ee9fe2) — 10/30/2006 @ 12:50 pmSo just change “terrorist acts” to “illegal acts of terror and violence” to be more grammatically correct.
Although to be more precise, a terrorist may or may not wear a uniform.
Paul (511f19) — 10/30/2006 @ 1:41 pmKrazy Kagu, why do you hate spotted owls?
EFG (aa5d0a) — 10/30/2006 @ 5:46 pmDeath squads often were not official.
actus (10527e) — 10/30/2006 @ 7:09 pmWas Che official?
eletra (aa5d0a) — 10/30/2006 @ 7:17 pmPre or post 1959? Inside or outside cuba? Or perhaps we better drop this distinction and realize that terror is terror — even when we do it.
actus (10527e) — 10/30/2006 @ 7:30 pmCould we perhaps realize that Che is a terrorist?
eletra (aa5d0a) — 10/30/2006 @ 7:37 pmIf he commits terror, that would do it in my book. But some people want to give state actors a pass. I say thats kind of silly.
actus (10527e) — 10/30/2006 @ 7:57 pmDo you think it is silly to deny Che is a terrorist?
eletra (aa5d0a) — 10/30/2006 @ 7:59 pmI think the only way to do so is with the definition that governments don’t do terrorism. Seems silly to me: if its terror its terror.
actus (10527e) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:08 pmYour meaning is unclear.
eletra (aa5d0a) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:20 pmDid Che do acts of terror?
eletra (aa5d0a) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:21 pmDidn’t he help to terrorize the civilian population in bolivia?
actus (10527e) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:23 pmDid he?
eletra (aa5d0a) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:24 pmThats what I’m asking. I have a hard time seeing how one fights an insurgency or a counter-insurgency without terror.
actus (10527e) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:26 pmIt sounds like you are saying Che did acts of terror.
eletra (aa5d0a) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:29 pmIt sounds like captain obvious has learned to use the internet.
actus (10527e) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:36 pmExcuse me? Gratuitious personal insults are not appreciated.
It sounds like you are saying Che did acts of terror.
eletra (aa5d0a) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:45 pmIt sounds like you are saying Che did acts of terror.Excuse me? Gratuitious personal insults are not appreciated.
It sounds like you are saying Che did acts of terror.
eletra (aa5d0a) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:46 pmActus is being out-Actused.
See Dubya (79a44f) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:57 pmdo they terrorize?
actus (10527e) — 10/30/2006 @ 8:58 pmIt sounds like you are saying Che did acts of terror.
eletra (aa5d0a) — 10/30/2006 @ 9:00 pmIt sounds like you are saying Che engaged in gratuitous personal insults, actus.
If I understand this.
Which I don’t.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/30/2006 @ 9:01 pm“The purpose of terror is to terrorize”. (Yasser Arafat, on best knowledge and belief.)
Che Guevara was a clueless a-hole who Castro sent to his death because he did not want him around to be a Trotsky to his Stalin. In Bolivia, Guevara engaged in acts of random violence which did not terrorize anyone but only brought attention on him. He and his Cuban contingent were not able to meld into the population (due to their different physiognomy and dialect) in accordance with Maoist doctrine of guerilla warfare (“the guerilla hides in the population like a fish in water”) and he was brought down like a bandit pretty much like the final scene in “Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid”.
Beats me how this has any relevance to “outings”.
nk (35ba30) — 10/30/2006 @ 10:43 pm