Names of gay GOP Aides, Staffers & Congressmen now on "The List"

[Oilwellian]

Something interesting has been brought to my attention. The Blogactive site has posted a version of The List--or a list. It contains the names of members of Congress, Bush aides, celebrities and others in addition to Capitol Hill staffers. It claims that Kirk Fordham, Mark Foley's previous chief of staff, is gay. I certainly don't know whether that's true or not. But assume for a moment it is. Fordham yesterday told various reporters that he had warned Speaker Denny Hastert's office about his boss sometime in the 2002 to 2004 period. What's intriguing about this is that after House Republicans had started suggesting that the gay GOP staffers--sometimes called by Washington wags the Velvet Mafia or the Lavender Bund--were somehow to blame for the party's Foley-oriented woes, a staffer who might be a member of this under-fire group fired back, essentially saying, Hey, we warned Hastert about Foley years ago, and he did nothing. So there!

I'm just speculating here--and know nothing about Fordham's particulars. In any event--for whatever the reason--Fordham has made life rougher for Hastert and the leaders. Meanwhile, a source writes:

The fact that some of the GOP gay guys are worried about a right-wing backlash against them is very telling. Their existence in all of these Hill offices would certainly explain (to the right-wingers) the total lack of legislative progress on most of the Christian/social conservative issues. I'd be pissed if I had a social conservative agenda that hadn't been addressed and suddenly it became clear, like now, who might have been subtly blocking it.

That's another dimension that had not occurred to me--and another reason to wonder how messy this might get.

http://www.davidcorn.com/index.php

[bluestateguy]

1. I favor OUTING any gay politician who has an anti-gay voting record

Do it.

[EFerrari]

2. But that's not who is going to get it. It's the gay staffers who

will be made to pay. The injustice is just gobsmacking.

[cynatnite]

3. They'll turn this thing into a damn witch hunt...

That's how malevolent these people are.

[originalpckelly]

4. Yeah, these people work for Santorum and other freeper...

homophobes. They should be made to pay, it is like someone black working for a klansman. It is so horrible.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

12. No gay people working these hate mongers gets any sympathy from me

Did they think they could all stay in their log closets and live happily ever after in this bigot baiting party they're associated with?

With all the hatred they have facilitated towards others in the GLBT community, it would be karma if some of this shit fell on the Log Cabin/Closet Republicans.

[EFerrari]

16. And that's karma's job, not yours.

Right?

We don't know the whole story on these people. We don't know how much hate they slowed down or stalled. We don't know enough to judge them.

[MADem]

21. Mike Rogers can help with that

http://www.blogactive.com/2005/10/ive-been-asked-few-times-how-many.html

He researches the people, their 'stories' and their enthusiastic support of politicians and policies who hate people who are just like them.

I have to agree with Mister Rogers on this matter--it's the hypocrisy, not the orientation.

If you want your private life kept private, you shouldn't pick on people who are just like you by voting against giving them the same rights as all others, I guess...

[EFerrari]

23. I agree. But we're not talking about voting members.

We're talking about staffers.

So, what other careers should gays not go into?

Really, think about this all the way through to the logical consequences.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

24. Don't be a staffer for a party that uses homophobia as a campaign issue

Be a staffer for the good guys.

Get into the campaign management business for the good guys.

It's the hypocrisy not the orientation.

Once again, I don't feel for them or any other republican when the hatred their party forments comes back and bites them on the ass.

[EFerrari]

25. Do YOU have a job for these people, progressive?

I'm the last person to advocate appeasing haters, but, jezus, this is a JOB, it is someone's daily bread.

What other career options do you believe the GLBT community should stay away from? :eyes:

[MADem]

27. Work for a Democrat, and live out loud, fachrissake... NT

[EFerrari]

28. Well, if you're a gay person, maybe there should be a sticker

on the store front. "Gays need not apply."

Come on, think about it. Yes, in a perfect world, we'd never collaborate with this scum.

But, we live here. And, we have to eat.

[MADem]

32. Don't take this like I'm being mean, but that is absolute bullshit

You used the word COLLABORATE (in all it's dreadful French glory). And it applies.

Are you suggesting to me that the ONLY job a smart political science major could get in DC might be with a rabidly anti-gay politician? Come on. These staffers are not kids working at a rare, hard-to-get job at McDonalds in Mississippi for a rabid gay hating manager. There are LOTS of jobs in DC, on the Hill, in Think Tanks, at lobbying outfits and nonprofits, you name it. Some pay better than others, and the ones that would let them sleep at night without self-loathing and guilt are on the Democratic side, not the side of the party in power with all the neat perks and cool CODELS and junkets.

These staffers made an ACTIVE decision to work for and support the policies of a party that fucking hates gay people, because they were cravenly opportunistic and put their principles on ice for the lure of cold hard cash and the drunken thrill of POWER that accompanies working for the majority party.

They CHECK your voter registration, you know, before you get the gig--these craven opportunists had to REGISTER GOP. They JOINED the hating party--the party that wouldn't help when people were dropping like flies from AIDS. The party that goes ballistic over civil unions or heaven forbid, gay marriage. The party that doesn't want gays to adopt kids.

Sorry, that's like a Jew working for Hitler, and using the excuse that they are somehow "different" and of course, BETTER than the rest of those unfortunate bastards marching to the ovens, or that maybe they'll be able to slow down the rate of burn by being on the inside. It is an excuse that just doesn't cut it.

The GOP wants gays either dead or so far back in the closet that you could get out your old winter coat from the back hook and not notice them. And using the gee, they paid me Thirty Pieces of Silver excuse just doesn't absolve these bums of their vital role in setting back the agenda of their own interest group.

Talk about pulling a Michael Jackson--you know how he, after bleaching his skin paper white and renting a woman to spit out white children for him, went looking for his 'African roots' after he got in trouble? No doubt Foley and any outed staffers will try to run to the "rainbow friends" for shelter--the same ones they worked against for all those years.

It's called hypocrisy, and it just doesn't deserve a pass.

FWIW, Mike Rogers is on Fucker Carlson right now--MSNBC....

[EFerrari]

34. Yes, I used the word "collaborate" very deliberately.

And it looks like we're not going to agree on this one.

There is a place where gay folk have to work. Where it is their right to work, to earn their living.

In our feeding frenzy (and God knows, I'm on it) we need to remember that space.

And, btw, during the rise and rule of Hitler, Jews needed to work and feed their families just as they did before Hitler came into power.

[The Straight Story]

46. Maybe some gays don't really see things the way you do

IE - they prefer the general repug message of smaller government, except defense, etc and so on. All the while feeling that people's sexuality should not enter into a lot of things.

An example would be my friend who is gay and as conservative as it gets (though he leans libertarian he votes republican).

He raised money for bush. He voted for him. He felt he was better able to lead the country in general than kerry on some issues. He does not like the right's stand on gays, but since he keeps it to himself he does not have much of an issue with it. He didn't like what clinton did/did not do in relation to gays either.

His view is that the right is not trying to stop someone from being gay, and while they may not be running out there with open arms on marriage and the military he does not see himself and his lifestyle threatened by bush and crew. Wrong or right, I know he wants to keep his private sex life private. It is no one's business to go blabbing to others he works with that he sleeps with a man.

For all I know half my engineers at work are gay, I don't really care or ask them and if I found out I don't see why I would 'out' them anymore than I would go around telling people that bill sleeps with women (some of whom are married). It's just no one's fucking business to go around telling others who someone likes to fuck.

Hell, some of those pages may be bi-sexual, maybe some like to dress up in women's clothes, go to orgies, etc. That is their business and if they are keeping it private and seperate so should we - unless the goal is to punish a fellow human and make em pay for what we see as a sin.

Make em suffer, that will fix em. Sheesh.

[MADem]

49. Well, your conservative friend must not want to marry or adopt now

And he must not want to join the military either. Because under the GOP he is a second class citizen without those rights. If he has a loved partner, he can't put that partner on his health insurance, and the partner's family can override him if the partner gets sick and needs treatment. Unless he lives in MA or VT, that is.

I don't think the issue is "sin" at all. I think the issue of orientation ought to be IRRELEVANT. The ones who are making it a "sin" matter are the GOP, and the closeted gays who support the agenda of hate are complicit in keeping down their fellow travellers.

You need to read the full thread before you spout off, BTW, because your comment about your 'engineers' makes absolutely NO sense in the context of this discussion. Are your engineers actively working to put down gay people? Do they write legislation to deny gays rights?

Mike Rogers isn't outing people who aren't actively working against gays, but your "that will fix em" snark implies that that is the case. He's only going after those who advance and support a homophobic, gay hating agenda.

So sheesh back at you. Reading is fundamental.

[The Straight Story]

51. so what legislation have those people enacted/proposed?

Is it simply that the party in general has issues with gays, or are those senators/reps actively involved in harming gays via legislation?

As far as my friend - he has been in a relationship for 15 years with the same person, they have no desire to be in the military but also support the right of people to serve in it if they are gay.

I think it does not help the cause any to go about telling others if a person prefers to sleep with someone of the same sex or not (or be in a committed relationship with someone of same sex, etc and so on). We have no idea of what these people did or how they were able to possibly influence things for the betterment of others, they may well have helped stopped legislation some bigot was going to put in by revealing themselves only to said senator/rep.

To assume they are working with the 'enemy' to hinder the rights of others requires some esp, which I don't think I have much of.

The core ideal here seems to be - punish them for not doing what I want them to do, and that seems just plain wrong.

[MADem]

53. Mike Rogers outs on the basis of legislative action, not orientation

He goes after legislators and staffers who come down on the "homophobe" side of DOMA, DADT, hate crimes legislation, adoption legislation, employment discrimination, equal rights, and so forth.

All I can tell you is peruse his website. He is a gay political activist who thinks that gay people, be they staffers or legislators, who work to promote laws that hurt gay people should be outed. I think he's right.

He doesn't go after people for BEING gay, but for being gay while actively working to screw (and not in a nice way) fellow gays.

[The Straight Story]

55. Well therein lies the issue perhaps

And really, I am not trying to be difficult :) I grew up in Ohio and have gay friends who are not all dems (my best friend being one of them).

They march in the gay pride parade, donate money, shop at gay friendly businesses, etc and so on. What seperates them though is they aren't pushing for more 'gay rights' as it were as they think and want gay related issues to be left in the 'bedroom'.

They don't care if they can marry, they do well without all the hassle. They just want to live their private lives and be left alone, and the more press and politics the more they become something they don't want to be. Their view is that they accepted some things won't be the same for them and they actually seem to like living out of the mainstream on such issues as DOMA - all the while oddly supporting gay marriage by promoting more libertarian views (ie, less government).

To them the democrats, while being friendly to them, are not the answer. Less laws and government solves their problems. Marriage, etc, should be a more local realm, and less government on the federal side means more diversity of life on the state and local side (and less chance of consolidated power of bigots).

So sure - one can see them as working against someone's gay agenda (and I don't use agenda in a bad way here, just seemed the right phrase) but there is no central agenda people go by. Their way to a better life is through conservative/libertarian principles to make everyone more free, and they see the dems as legislation happy big gov folks.

*I* don't agree with them on the core issues, but I sure as hell would not out my best friend to his coworkers (and he has not told them he is gay, and they have not told him they are straight) simply because he was not towing my personal line of how my faith says he should act.

[MADem]

65. I suspect your friends are the minority. Most gay folks I know

would like the same OPTIONS as the rest of Americans. To marry, or NOT. To adopt, or not. To put a partner on their health insurance, or not.

It's not a question of getting involved in their bedrooms, it's making what happens in bedrooms IRRELEVANT.

Look, if your friends aren't legislators, or working for legislators, who are writing the laws, casting the votes, then they have no worries. No one is stopping people from having opinions, even idiotic and misguided ones.

Mike Rogers is only going after the guys who actively--actively, mind you--are working against their own community, and creating legislation to keep them in a second class status.

[The Straight Story]

69. But that IS my point really

'Their own community'. My friends don't see it as a whole community, or group. They see it as individuals and not group think and don't like having to belong to some group they never signed up with.

They are just simply gay, and are fine with that and how things were/are for the most part. They don't want bullied into something or persecuted because they won't do what the group tells them they have to.

And the fact that they raised money or voted for bush and crew is not much different then if they had a job with a legislator, they could still be considered enablers and outed - and for what? To make their lives more difficult or open then they want them to be?

My friend's own parents have no idea he is gay, he is fine with that. But now some guy comes along and says 'you are a hypocrite because you don't do things we want you to do' and decides to out people to learn em a lesson.

Seems pretty tacky to me. All gays don't think and act the same, but this fellow sure as hell believes they had better pony up to his views or be prepared to pay the price. That does not seem progressive to me at all, or pro choice either.

[MADem]

70. Mike Rogers wouldn't do that. If you look at his website, especially

the archives, you'd see that. I can't see him even nailing a big money fundraiser. His targets are VERY specific. He sticks to those with the power to legislate, at the state and federal level, and predominantly at the federal level, since he lives in DC. And he only goes after "anti-gay" gays who actively work against their own.

All Americans of African ancestry don't think alike either, but none of them, I would wager, are fans of going back to slavery, save those that need a psychiatrist. I doubt they are fans of segregation, either, and would want to go back to those 'interesting times.' Now, that example IS a bit hyperbolic, but you can see where I'm headed.

Your 'go along, get along' gay friends are apparently content with their second class status--and they ARE second class citizens. They don't want to join the military. They don't want to marry. They don't want to adopt children. They don't want to share their health insurance benefits with a partner. They ARE unusual. Most gay people I know would like the CHOICE to do these things, even if they don't actually do them...the CHOICE, just like anyone else.

My gay friends aren't content with being treated like criminals, suspects and second class citizens--of course, they live in a state where they CAN get married, share their health benefits, adopt, and they'd like other states to recognize their status without a load of bullshit. They don't want their adopted kids to be in danger of being taken from them if they decide to move to homophobic Florida or some other gay hating state. Many would like to join the military (less nowadays, due to Iraq) but refuse to be forced to lie in order to serve their country.

I hope you can see the nuance, but if you can't, you should take a look at Mike's website. He's pretty clear about who he goes after, and why. And who he doesn't go after, either.

[The Straight Story]

71. I have read over his site, but still have a problem here really

"And he only goes after "anti-gay" gays who actively work against their own. "

That to me smacks of something large and powerful, where all may not agree with the direction and if you don't you are considered a 'traitor' to 'the' cause.

From his site:

'I don't actually call it outing. I call it reporting,' explained Michael Rogers, whose Web site, www.blogactive.com, has reported on Foley's homosexuality for three years.

'I put it there because Foley had a record that was against the gay community. He refused to denounce his vote on the Defense of Marriage Act. It's not about being gay. It's about the hypocrisy.'

---end quote

To me 'the gay community' is wider and broader in scope then he sees, so those who are gay and don't do things the way he wants he 'reports' on. Foley can be gay and against legislation that allows gays to marry based on other views he may have on marriage, taxes, et al. There can be, and are, philisophical differences which lead to why one votes how they do.

I just don't see outing someone who chooses to keep their life private is of any value here. The most it might do is get the RW in a bind where they will vote that RWer out for one even less sympathetic to his views and desires. At least someone who is gay and in the closet might slowly work to change things, expose them and let them be replaced with someone even more RW does not help at all.

AND NOW - we have given them even more fodder. "See, them gay folks are wanting to have sex with little kids, so we ain't safe having them and their kind in our party at all, ever" so we just confirm with this who debacle their core views - that being gay means you are a perv. Outing more people will only add to the witch hunt.

[MADem]

73. Well, I can't buy that "slowly work to change things" crap

That would be like Lyndon Johnson telling Martin Luther King "Look heah, Maartin, jus' let me finish up this little ole war in VEE et Nam and THEN ah'll git ta working on this civil rights stuff fer y'all..." You act when there's an overwhelming cry for justice. You don't wait. Justice delayed IS justice denied.

You seem unwilling to grasp the concept of rank hypocrisy embodied by these legislators and staffers. Anyone who preaches DO AS I SAY, and those goes off and does something completely different is a hypocrite. These people are not private citizens, who are not "reported on" as you seem to fear, they are public figures engaged in the business of making our nation's laws. And the difference between their public statements and their private behavior is thus, fair game. It's no different than Jimmy Swaggart, telling his flock not to diddle and sin, grabbing their money hand over fist, and getting caught out spending their money on diddling and sin.

And as for your fodder remark and that horseshit canard about gays and little kids, that's just absurd, unless you unquestioningly buy rightwing flopsweat commentary designed to incite fear in homophobes. Here's a talking point for you: 80 percent of molested children are GIRLS. Makes it rather problematic to suggest that gay men are doing the majority of the molesting in that case, I'd say. Memorize that statistic. And here's a cite: http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm

[Irreverend IX]

111. Wrong?

There's nothing righter than breaking the power and ruining the lives of Republicans. They are the mortal enemies of the Constitution. They want to create a medieval serf economy in which corporations hold absolute power over the lives of citizens. Got it?

[EFerrari]

57. No. It's not my business to punish people for their sexuality.

[mondo joe]

58. Is it your business to collaborate with oppressors by being complicit

in keeping their secrets?

[The Straight Story]

60. So, again, punish those who don't do what you want them to?

Why is someone's sexuality a secret you feel authorized to announce to the world?

You see that Kennedy wants to reauthorize the no child left behind act? If you don't agree with that are you going to find something on him that could harm him and tell us all?

[mondo joe]

61. I don't believe in secrets like that.

I don't care if it's reported that someone in politics is gay.

I don't practice a double standard.

[EFerrari]

77. Yes, you do. You're willing to punish gay people for being gay.

[mondo joe]

78. That's ridiculous. Since when is a free press reporting the truth to

the electorate a punishment?

I'm gay. I don't believe in your BS double standards.

[EFerrari]

82. Your orientation is of no consequence in this instance.

And yes, context does matter to people who bother to think.

[mondo joe]

84. Regardless of my orientation, I don't buy your BS double standard.

Thanks!

[EFerrari]

88. And I don't buy your irresponsible violation of other people's boundaries.

Thanks!

[mondo joe]

89. No one is forced to workk in politics against their will.

They chose to live in the public eye.

[EFerrari]

92. I am just amazed at how easy it is for you to judge other people.

[mondo joe]

93. You mean like I judge Bush? Or like I judge Scalia?

Besides - I'm not judging anyone in this case. I'm saying in a reprentative democracy the press is obliged to report the truth about candidates and those in office.

I'm surprised to find such a strange freeperish disrespect for the press and the public here on DU.

[EFerrari]

96. You know, that's bs. We're talking about staffers that are going

to take the fall. They're not candidates and they don't hold public office.

Your argument is bullshit. It's invasive and violates the first amendment.

I call bullshit.

[mondo joe]

97. Staffers choose to work in politics as well.

And there is NOTHING about it that violates the first amendment.

Guess you don't know about freedom of the press.

[EFerrari]

99. We better just hang it up because we're not going to agree on this one.

[EFerrari]

62. I'm sorry. I'm not in the business of chosing for people.

[mondo joe]

63. I see. Do you think the press has any responsibility to inform the

electorate aboout hypocrites in government?

Or are they obliged to be complicit in keeping secrets?

[The Straight Story]

64. Why would they be hypocrites???

There are many straight people who vote this way or that, many gays that do the same - why should whom they sleep with even be part of politics? Sounds almost fundie to me that we want to out people or run about telling the world about someone else's sexuality.

[mondo joe]

66. I'm sorry you think being gay is nothing but "whom they sleep with".

And I have no problem exposing the enemy. If the electorate opts to endorse or dondemmn them is not in my power.

[The Straight Story]

72. It's about who we all sleep with really

Sad that it has come to such really. The view of the left is that it is ok to cheat on the wife (ala Clinton) or to have sex with teens (ala foley and those on the left wanting to lower the age of consent). All these things have to do with whom we choose to have sex with.

And that, to me, is no one's business. How we behave sexually can be seperated from how we act in other matters. That is progressive to me. The right links the two, whereas I had hoped we would de-link them, but by making someones sexual choices fodder for blogs we end up playing the same game.

[mondo joe]

74. The fact that Repubs demonize gays but give them significant

roles on their staff isn't about who they sleep with - it's about their hypocrisy.

[EFerrari]

75. What a big fat straw man.

Since when did someonw's orientation become breaking news?

No homophobia, no breaking news.


Really, that's just ridiculous.

[mondo joe]

79. It doesn't have to be "breaking news". But it is relevant.

Just like any other political relationship.

[EFerrari]

76. Why don't you just volunteer to join the secret police?

[mondo joe]

81. Secret police? How about the press just does its job?

You know - to inform the electorate, not to be complicit in political secrets.

[EFerrari]

85. Because reporting on someone's sexuality is coercive in of itself.

It's only meant to exert control. Otherwise, why would it be news?

[mondo joe]

87. Why would it be news? Because it is relevant.

The press is not charged with complicity in political secrets. The press is to inform the electorate.

[EFerrari]

90. Tautology. n/t

[mondo joe]

91. Not at all. A politician in a party that demonizes gays, but places

them in positions of power withing their administration, is relevant.

Any hypocrite in office should have that hypocrisy exposed.

[EFerrari]

94. Sure -- spread the hatred. It reflects so well on you. nt

[mondo joe]

95. Spread hatred? Why so against a free press?

What a bizarre attitude.

What other secrets do you think the press should keep? Bush's AWOL status? Foley's emails? Strom Thurmond's biracial child?

[EFerrari]

98. Have you ever heard of the right to privacy?

Or, is that also a freeperish idea?

:rofl:

[mondo joe]

100. There is no right to have the press keep your secrets.

You should know that.

[EFerrari]

101. If that were true in practice, then the whole press corps would

have to resign.

:rofl:

[mondo joe]

102. The press might as well resign if your odd notion of a right to secrecy

were true.

After all - if you had your way anyone prevent the press for revealing any secret they didn't want exposed.

[Irreverend IX]

112. Secret police?

Come to think of it, the Russian KGB, Nazi Gestapo and other secret police forces were just trying to "earn their daily bread." Would it have been wrong to disrupt those people's livelihoods? The difference between their role in suppressing human rights and a Republican staffer's role in the same is only a matter of degrees.

[mondo joe]

68. It's not a gay issue.

If an elected official oppresses blacks, should I ignore it because I'm not black?

If, while he was in office, it was known that Strom Thurmond had a biracial daughter would I be wrong to expose ity?

[MADem]

26. There are staffers on his list, including Reynold's COS

Check the link above. He's there.

[EFerrari]

30. Oh geeze. This is gonna be a blood bath.

:(

[MADem]

33. That list is over a YEAR OLD. This is NOT news NT

[EFerrari]

36. It is to the Thug base. I only hope not too many people go down.

:(

[MADem]

42. Well, then they are stupid idiots. They sure as hell weren't paying

attention. The ONLY one who had the ED SCHROCK story at the outset was Mike Rogers, and when that broke, it was such a story that he dropped out of his race.

That should have put his website on their radar permanently.

I hope every single one of their hypocritical asses doesn't go down, but goes up--in FLAMES. They deserve no less.

They can crawl their way back to redemption like David Brock did--maybe he'll give them some minimum-wage internships at his outfit, where they can start to atone for their eighties-like greed.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. They facilitated the establishment of policies that hurt people just like them--that's just WRONG.

[EFerrari]

43. I do understand all that, and agree. But there is a difference

between living our ideals and living in the real world.

Don't tell me we make our real world because that's crap.

This is what black people went through and still go through. What women still go through.

Sorry, I can't come down against closeted and mostly helpless people. I live in a society that demonizes them.

Shame on US.

[MADem]

44. But these people are not "HELPLESS"

These are people who MAKE OUR LAWS. As well as the senior staff for the people who make our laws. These are the people who are DOING the DEMONIZING.

I'm kinda astounded that you of all people aren't making the connection, to be honest.

These aren't poor little frightened wage slaves, these are people with POWER, legislators and SENIOR staff, making really good money, who boss around a slew of subordinates, and who say "Do as I say, but NOT as I do." These are people who COULD make a difference by being courageous, but instead prefer to preserve a climate of hate and discrimination and won't rock the boat, for fear of having to justify their positions and perhaps actually have to WORK for reelection instead of being a shoo-in.

The only reason they are closeted is because telling the truth would screw up their access to perks and power. They've got the brains and the resume to find work elsewhere, if they can't sell their experience and record to their electorate. They simply lack the CHARACTER to tell the truth, to stand and deliver, or to move on.

[EFerrari]

47. I'm sorry to disappoint you, honestly, I am.

But at bottom, we're talking about people reviled as policy.

People whose private lives are violated every day in the press.

This ISN'T an even field.

Yes, these guys seem to work against the community. But would you put your hand in the fire and swear they were doing no more than trying to hold their life together?

Maybe there's something wrong with me but, until gay folk have the same rights we all should have, I'm gonna be very careful about condemning anyone for taking a job.

[MADem]

48. I just can't back them, support them, or excuse them. They hurt their own

But I come from a family where a relative gave up a job with a massive paycheck because the company made napalm during Vietnam, and he couldn't get behind that weapon (and this was well before he had come out against the war itself). If you feel strongly about something, you need to back your talk with walk. You just can't sleep with the enemy and stay true to yourself.

I think you just don't work against your own, especially when your own ARE so downtrodden. How can they live with themselves, stepping and fetching for haters, repeating their hate-filled talking points, pushing their discriminatory agenda, and even writing the hate-filled legislation for them? Their roles are NOT benign. This isn't like being Hitler's maid or cook, uninvolved with the POLICY end of things, this is like being the clown who writes Hitler's war plans and designs Hitler's ovens. Sure, they get the perks, the reflected glory, the jazzy junkets, and the reporters nuzzling up to them for tidbits, which makes them feel all important, but damn...this isn't a SMALL thing, it's a BIG deal. It's who they are. It's what they are. And they DON'T "have" to do it.

There are PLENTY of jobs in DC, as I said. There are loads of jobs in NORVA. For that matter, there are jobs all over America, and if they can't find something to their liking on the Hill or at a nonprofit, working for someone who isn't a hater, then maybe, for their own mental health, they SHOULD move on to somewhere where they don't have to pretend to be a homophobe who supports anti-gay legislation to get by.

David Brock's book is a good synopsis of what happens to people who live not a little lie, but a big HUGE, all-encompassing lie. It almost killed him. And if it doesn't bother these guys to hide and play a hater, then they ARE a bunch of Roy Cohns, and they deserve what they'll get for living a hypocritical life.

But hey, we're not going to agree, so I'll stop. If you know someone in that situation, if I were you I'd urge them to start working on their resume, and to move on, for their own sanity and self-respect, if nothing else.

[Binka]

56. You just can't sleep with the enemy and stay true to yourself.

Amen. I am shocked to see some of DUs finer members advocating otherwise. Like you said these are not MC job types. They have a choice and if they chose to lose their souls over this then fuck 'em.

They are hurting more than themselves. Selfish and unforgivable.

[MADem]

67. Absolutely.

You have to live with yourself. And putting others down isn't the way to make that an easy or comfortable enterprise.

Hey Binka, how ya doin'? I think of you and Ben every time I see HELLO KITTY! Good vibes to your lovely family!

[EFerrari]

80. Why don't we just come up with a list of jobs that gay people

shouldn't hold?

It's not up to me to judge these folks. Sure, I have my own feelings and thoughts about what they do.

But, it's not up to me to judge other working people, period.

[mondo joe]

86. Perhaps you misunderstand representative democracy.

No individual here on DU can decide who can have which job. But the electorate can - and should - decide who to elect to office.

[mondo joe]

54. Indeed. I don't know how much of a victim-worldview you need to have

to think these lousy shits are "helpless".

[w4rma]

104. They can always become Democratic staffers.

The Republican Party is their Party, not mine. I have absolutely no control over how they manage their Party.

[mondo joe]

39. Since I don't believe in karma, humans will have to take care of it

themselves.

[Irreverend IX]

110. Karma's a bunch of bullshit.

The only justice in this world is the justice you make for yourself. _No mercy_ for Republicans, ever.

[IronLionZion]

108. buddy, those staffers are working against you

In working for politicians who pass legislation to suppress your rights, they are directly working against you, your fellow gay Americans, and even themselves.

It's the hypocrisy not the homosexuality. It's just as bad if women were working against women or jews were working against jews or blacks against blacks or whatever. People who work to restrict the rights of their own people deserve to have their hypocrisy outed.

[pkz]

15. go for it!

out all the gay politicians that betrayed their blessed religious right wing backers!
you know that is one thing about a good Dem, may be gay, but they won't hide behind groups that proclaim the sin of it.

[EFerrari]

17. What the f#ck ever happened to "first, do no harm".

Sheesh

[MADem]

29. The guy doing what you call 'harm' is an out gay man named Mike

Rogers. He only does 'harm' to those who work for or are legislators who do things like forbid gays to adopt, vote for DOMA, and advocate policies like not allowing any sorts of partnerships or the placing of a gay partner on health insurance and so on.

First, do no harm is for Doctors, anyway. The guys he's outing are creating policies that harm an entire segment of our population simply for their orientation.

[EFerrari]

31. I know and it's still wrong, imho.

Outing people only forwards hatred.

We're not about hatred.

[MADem]

35. My mileage varies. We'll have to agree to disagree I guess

I agree with what Mike Rogers is doing. If people's public declarations aren't at odds with their private lives, he doesn't bother them or point them out. But he won't let anyone run on a "gay bashing" platform and live as a 'private gay' without pointing it out.

I thinks that fair. Talk the talk, ya better walk the walk.

[EFerrari]

40. I usually agree with you. I'm sorry I can't on this one.

:(

[kath]

83. Well, as I see it, Rogers is not really about outing the "gayness" of

these people (which could be seen as "forwarding hatred", as you put it), he is about outing their HYPOCRISY. Two different things.

Shining the light on HYPOCRITES does not "forward hatred". We need a whole lot *more* outing of RW hypocrisy of ALL types. And if we had any sort of decent media, we'd see more of it.

[mondo joe]

37. I couldn't agree more. Out every last one of them.

They deserve it, and it will fracture the alliance of the fundies with the right wing corporate exploiters.

[MADem]

5. That website Corn cites is fairly accurate

The guy who runs it is gay, and he double-vets his information. He's very dedicated to exposing hypocrisy, and he takes things quite personally. He's the guy who called out Foley years ago, and who got ahold of the "ED SCHROCK TAPES" (Ed, for those with short memories, was the Retired US NAVY Captain who was a total McGreevey--a family man with a secret life). The tapes caused Ed to withdraw from his congressional race two years ago.

[Oilwellian]

8. I've checked out his website and he's sick of the hypocrisy

Corn mentioned Blogactive posted "the list" or a version of it but haven't been able to find it yet.

Chris O'Donnell mentioned this would be the next big wave to hit regarding the Foley story. The rightwing are ghoulish enough to try and blame gays for the Foley issue, but I think it'll backfire.

[MADem]

19. No, he hasn't posted it, he HAS it...from what I understand

He only outs hypocrites, like Ed Schrock. I got a kick out of that outing, because that guy was a shithead when he was on active duty!

This isn't his "LIST" but it is a list of everyone he's outed because of their hypocrisy: http://www.blogactive.com/2005/10/ive-been-asked-few-times-how-many.html

[patcox2]

9. Gays in the Navy? Say it ain't so!

What next, interior decoraters? Hill staffers?

There is noone who has been to Washington and isn't blind who doesn't know that there is a very high percentage of gays among hill staff, in both parties.

[shadow 99]

6. This is turning bad. Lanny Davis last night warned the party

not to keep at it or it is going to turn. I hope we have not taken it that far.

[EFerrari]

7. Welcome to DU, shadow 99. I don't think I understand what you mean?

[geiger]

11. Dont pile on if you don't have to; they've done it to themselves & media

already taking care of it. Definitely don't need to be celebrating on this, and need to stay focused on the big picture.

I do this we have to respond in a controlled way, though, and I think Lanny Davis would agree, plus there's a new book out The Way to Win, which talks about Kerry's fatal paralysis after his war record was attacked.

[EFerrari]

13. Well, the pod people pile on and never shut up and that works

for them. :shrug:

[saracat]

14. Yeah well, Lanny Davis adores Lieberman so I mistrust anything he says

[Leopolds Ghost]

59. What he means is the LIST was created to BLACKMAIL gay repubs AND DEMS.

DeLay and the "Velvet Mafia" run out of his office used the LIST -- for 10 years.

Rove inherited it.

That's why Dems like Lanny Davis and Pelosi are so afraid to speak out on ANY ISSUE.

They are afraid of being blackmailed.

They are afraid of Rove outing their colleagues.

That is why Rove has kept all his ammunition on Dems in reserve.

They have been so cooperative until now -- except when Rove was tied up with his own legal difficulties.

Foley was part of the scheme. As Brock and others warned us years ago, he was using his office as a casting couch to recruit new members of the "closeted Republican club" who were then subject to blackmail by DeLay and Rove. As Brock and others noted, all too many current hill staffers got their start as pages thanks to FOLEY.

Think about the ugliness of this, and how difficult it is even to expose without damaging the people who have been blackmailed for being gay on both sides of the aisle.

More Background on the Blackmail Angle:

Was Foley used as bait to attract and recruit blackmailable future staffers?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2313002

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2314623

How DeLay kept tabs on closeted gay Republicans (the "velvet mafia")

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2298454&mesg_id=2298454

Remember DeLay's ties to Foley -- and to the Marianas islands?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2326455

[KoKo]

18. Lanny Davis is worried about his own Shadow....He's hardly a good

spokesperson for Democrats at this point.

[MADem]

22. It is not "turning bad." Gosh, rachet back your 'concern.'

The Democrats are doing exactly what they should be doing. Staying the fuck out of the way and letting the GOP form a circular firing squad. The only ones bitching about "the Democrats" are Faux Snooze, assorted GOP tools and politicians, and the right wing blogosphere.

[NewJeffCT]

50. I agree

I've seen Dems demanding investigations, but it's been kind of fun to watch the Republics pull the old circular firing squad trick for once. The strongest words, by far, have been from Republics. (other than the Wetterling ad... but, she has a great reason for being so tough!)

[patcox2]

10. Ralph Reed will be furious! He'll stamp his little feet!

Christian conservatives will be shocked, you say? I don't think so.

[ourbluenation]

20. Anti-gay gays...what's up with that?

I don't get it.

[MADem]

38. Money....POWER...."I'm Different--not like those unwashed bums"

If the Democratic Party were the party in power in the House when they were coming up and getting jobs, they'd have gone that way.

Craven opportunists. They'll sell their soul for cash and access to power.

You find them everywhere.

[mondo joe]

41. I'm looking forward to it.

And I think exposing hypocrisy in government is 100% newsworthy.

[Swamp Rat]

45. Joe McCarthy just had an orgasm in his grave

[lonestarnot]

103. ewwww.

nasty.

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. The presence of all those gay staffers ALSO explains the total CONTROL

exercised by DeLay's office -- he of the "Velvet fist".

Don't forget, senior staffers in DeLay's office are alleged by David Brock (ex-Republican GOP consultant) to be the first ones to come up with a "list" and exploit it in order to force Congress to stay in line with DELAY'S and BUSH'S BUSINESS priorities.

You think DeLay and Bush honestly cared about social issues? That was a fear tactic used to keep all the gay GOP staffers -- the ones they had DELIBERATELY recruited using Foley as a casting couch -- in order to keep moderate conservative Hill staffers in line for fear of their colleagues being outed.

We're talking blackmail here.

The answer may or may not lie in DeLay's trips to the Marianas islands -- where he said there was no child trafficking, no sweatshops, "none of that stuff".

Was DeLay's friend Abramoff involved in a blackmail scheme involving the Marianas islands junkets?

If Foley intended these junkets, who did he invite along? Pages? Staffers?

Is this why people on the hill are so afraid of and angry about Abramoff and DeLay?

Was keeping Foley in Congress a tool in their scheme?

[bleever]

105. As usual, lots of innocent people will be hurt

as the conflicting hypocrisies squirm for position.

Lots of info at this link that was news to me.

[cui bono]

106. Interesting angle indeed. n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

107. You have to wonder about a gay person who worked for the Republican

party. They absolutely knew that the GOP bashes gays. So why did they stay? I just don't get it.

[Irreverend IX]

109. It's time to tear the GOP in half.

Jesus freaks, admit it--you've been played. The Republicans are under the thumb of the EEEVUL HOMOSEKSHULS and they're never going to create the Taliban theocracy you've been wet-dreaming about. But it doesn't have to end this way. You can revolt against the Republicans, create your own "Crusader Party" or whatever, and bring decency back to America. Publicly denouncing the GOP in late October would be a great first step.

[mondo joe]

113. More to the point: the have been deceived by their "leaders".

At least that's how I'dtry to frame it:

The split isn't between Republicans and Gays. It's between the Repub foot soldiers and the elite Repub leaders, who give lip service to their masses, but in private coduct themselves by a different set of standards.