October 06, 2006
Rules for Gay Republicans And Others

The resignation of closeted gay Republican Florida Congressman Mark Foley for pursuing young male Congressional pages with sexual intent, via e-mail and instant messaging, carries several lessons.

Number One: gay closeting by GOP office-seekers and office-holders must end, as I wrote in this post on Jim West exactly one year ago to the day. This despite the party's opposition to gay marriage; and the very legitimate concerns of many Republicans about overbearing statist affirmations in public schools of alternate sexualities. Neither race, religion or sexual orientation should be thought in the least to require a vote one way or the other on any policy issue. To endorse such determinism is itself a form of stereotyping and bigotry. Have a conversation with a gay Libertarian sometime to see what I mean. Further, it is state legislatures and initiative voters, in both cases including Democrats, who've rejected gay marriage; not the GOP.

Number Two: The vulnerability of closeted gay Republicans underscores that anyway, the party must focus now not on evangelicals, but constituencies which lean libertarian on social issues; and are fiscally conservative, and hawkish on terrorism.

Number Three: Considering their party and how it is perceived by opponents, not to mention basic considerations of law and morality, gay Republicans must make sure their dalliances and ongoing sexual relationships are not with, ahem, MINORS. Better still, consort thusly only with actual ADULTS (21 or older) as opposed to "legal" young 'uns.

Number Four: Don't cover up for office-holders who are perverts, and or seeking to abuse their authority - whether they are heterosexual or gay.

Number Five: Quite apart from the overheated debate on what he already knew about Foley's sexual pursuit of Congressional pages, House Speaker Dennis Hastert is a lame SOB most of all because he has presided over a huge expansion of government spending while his party has controlled Congress and White House. His time has come, whether he exits leadership this month or another soon.

Number Six: Democrats latching onto the "Hastert must resign" now meme are truly without a real agenda to move America forward. They are pathetic. Whether he exits now or later, their bloodthirsty baying for his scalp will backfire, as stellar Oregonian columnist David Reinhard notes.

Back to Foley and his sometimes closeted, sometimes-not life. The LA Times, today, "Path Is Risky For Gay GOP Politicians:"

WASHINGTON -- At the Republican National Convention in 2000, Rep. Mark Foley hosted a late-night bash at a Philadelphia gay bar, where an acquaintance snapped a photo of an attractive young intern sitting on the Florida congressman's lap. Months later, according to the acquaintance, when she offered to send him the photo, Foley looked anxious. The intern, "male or female?" he inquired. "Female" was the reply. "Oh, thank God," Foley responded. "Send me that photo, I might need it someday."

Back home in Palm Beach, Foley was a bit more "out" with his longtime partner, but he still had to play the game in D.C. Sad. And unnecessary, at least as soon as the GOP sees that the big picture requires an end to evangelical pander-politics.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 06, 2006 03:32 PM | Email This
Comments
1. I think I'm going to throw up.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 6, 2006 03:38 PM
2. What the GOP needs most is to make it clear it is tolerant of gays, as well other non mainstream social issues.

As you point out the alliance with evangelicals will make this difficult. This alliance has been important though in getting the GOP into and in maintaining majority on the national scene.

I think the GOP's long term prospects demand that it keep close to the center, but if they do so will the evangelical faction turn out to vote? And if they don't will the GOP be able to keep and win seats?

Personally I believe that a few cycles of dems controlling the nation will bring the center out in force for the GOP and that the GOP will not need to pander to the religeous right.

Posted by: deadwood on October 6, 2006 03:38 PM
3. This shouldn't be much of an issue here in Seattle. Who doesn't know someone who is gay here? Shows the true colors of the left. Nothing and no one is sacred when it comes to their political steamroller.

I'd venture that the Christian Right is more tolerant of gays than the Secular Left is of gay Republicans. But don't question the left's tolerance.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 6, 2006 03:39 PM
4. I am learning a lot here.

There is a difference between a page and an intern in terms of age and age of consent.

There is a difference in when Hastert learned about the IMs versus the e-mails.

It is okay to have sex with an intern if it is of the opposite sex but not of the same sex (seventh line from the bottom).

Democrats are hypocrites but Republicans eat their own and do the right thing.

When a Democrat does a dirty trick, someone needs to let out in a loud deep voice to have everyone "settle down" and let things work out.

Posted by: swatter on October 6, 2006 03:42 PM
5. deadwood @#2 "Personally I believe that a few cycles of dems controlling the nation will bring the center out in force for the GOP and that the GOP will not need to pander to the religeous right."

Now I really am going to be sick.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 6, 2006 03:51 PM
6. After a few cycles of dems, the only religious faction we will need to pander to is the Caliphate.

Posted by: Steve on October 6, 2006 03:55 PM
7. Being ill about what is increasingly looking to be the near term future is good, but will it prevent it?

Posted by: deadwood on October 6, 2006 04:13 PM
8. Or, deadwood, are you letting the mainstream media manipulate you?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 6, 2006 04:20 PM
9. All of us have fundamental core beliefs.....many of them.
Personally, I do not have any single one that in & of itself is a litmus test.
I consider myself to be Conservative.
I do not consider Bush to be Conservative.
I have a number of Gay friends & acquaintences who in many aspects are much more Conservative than George Bush.....especially when it comes to the size & cost of government.
The role of Government must be minimized in all of our lives. Government must set the example in terms of Conservatism particularly in spending.
In my opinion, Bush has failed us in this regard.
There are many Conservative Republicans who feel just as I do.

Give me a Gay Fiscal Conservative anyday over some of the Borrow-and-Squander, sleeze-ball pretend Conservatives we have in Government today.

Our Republican Party CANNOT continue to expect support simply because we are at least a bit better than those damn Democrats.

It's time to raise the bar.

Frankly, I hope ALL the Lobbyist scammers in both Party's get thrown out this time.

I will vote for McGavick....although I have serious concerns about what he will do if & when he gets in office. Serious concerns. Hopefully Mike is not just another borrow-and-squander, weak-kneed pretend Conservative who's main goal is to be POPULAR!!

Yuck.

I don't buy the characterization that this so-called Religous Right is necessarily the problem.
Although folks that have a one issue litmus test (like if you are gay you are bad) are indeed a problem....instead of looking at many principals (especially the role and cost of Government in our lives).

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 6, 2006 04:34 PM
10. Or, Bill, are you letting your wishful thinking get the better of you? My wishful thinking spot is working overtime, but it being daily battered by the foolish goings on by folks who should know better.

While I may wish otherwise, I am now beginning to ready my frayed nerves for 2 or 4 years of disaster with the likes of Palousy and her gang of idiots running the congress.

I thank God Bush will still have the veto.

Posted by: deadwood on October 6, 2006 04:35 PM
11. I don't think there's any cause for duress.

The Dems were dumb to play the dirty tricks with the facts of Foley's behavior and even dumber to do it four weeks out from the election. There's plenty of time for the overall stability of the electorate to materialize as it always does.

And we are not talking about a Presidential race here, local politics is still be far the biggest factor in the elections. Has everyone forgottten Reichert-Burner and McGavick-Cantwell? Of course not. And the same is true for the rest of the country. Also, as the details of Foleygate have become exposed, it's pretty clear that in the universe of sex scandals, this was quite (pardon the pun) minor. For all of the pages were of DC consenting age. Foley knew the law well because he helped write those laws. Does it excuse his behavior, heck no, but everyone is jaded by the Internet-speed nature of the scandal and other recent scandals where real Pedohiles have used the Internet to phish for victims. The fact of the matter is that this was mostly just Foley and a few brief lines of text. Nothing anywhere near an actual case of sexual contact with a truly underage child.

Not much to see here, move along.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 6, 2006 04:43 PM
12. The Great Wheel of Karma has turned.

You dance with the Devil, you pay the price.

Posted by: david on October 6, 2006 04:46 PM
13. I'm not doing any wishful thinking. It's still a month to election day. That's a long time in politics.

Mr. Cynical I agree that Bush should have done more to reduce spending and the size of government. However the political cost of doing so is high, (Bush is taking food away from grandma and starving school children--we all know how the Dems and their media will react).
Don't forget as well that we are at war. Bush has cut taxes, stimulated the economy, and made some excellent Supreme Court appointments. Cut him a little slack.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 6, 2006 04:47 PM
14. I happen to agree with Cynical that the Repubs could be better on spending, but the Dems can only do worse.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 6, 2006 05:19 PM
15. REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES:

Note that you are going to have to live a higher standard than everyone else in this country. Why? Because your electorate doesn't tolerate anything less, and the Democrats know it.

If you are homosexual, you must be openly homosexual. If you are adulterous, you must be openly adulterous. If you get elected while the electorate knows full well that you are either homosexual or adulterous, then there will be no problem.

Why? Because the Republicans expect more, they assume that you are not homosexual or adulterous. They assume silence means you keep the law of chastity that Christ laid down--"Don't even think about it"--and that you are living that ideal. If you are not, be upfront and honest about it.

I am tired of seeing Republicans that think they can pass themselves off as upright and overwhelmingly moral. When they get found out, the fall is terrible.

Let us as Republicans keep our high standard and be honest about it. Let our candidates understand that assumption and be clear when they do not live up to it. That will solve the problems--honesty all around.

Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on October 6, 2006 05:22 PM
16. The late Sen. Warren Magnuson was once in a heated re-election battle with pious Governor Arthur Langlie. Magnuson commented at a luncheon, "If you elect this fella, you're gonna lose him next Easter."

Nobody's perfect, Jonathan.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 6, 2006 05:38 PM
17. Number Two: The vulnerability of closeted gay Republicans underscores that the party must focus now not on evangelicals, but new, more libertarian and younger constuencies.

Looks like that's what Foley was doing.

PS It wasn't tthe Demo's that released this, but a rare commoditiy; A Republican with a conscience.

Finally "Big Tent" folks It's not about Gay.
It's about Pedophilia.

That's the problem with Mr. Irrelevant, He thinks volunteering as the Church little league uniform fitter is okay.
That's why he supports Foley.

Posted by: danw on October 6, 2006 05:47 PM
18. danw--
KLOWNS like you stand for nothing...and fall for anything.
No one "supports" Foley numbskull.
Your life must be mighty pathetic danw.
No family. No friends.
Life is about relationships & friendships danw.
Give it try.
Much more fulfilling than staring at the clock and yourself....watching your meaningless life slip away.
Tick-tock-tick-tock.
Another wasted day danw.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 6, 2006 05:55 PM
19. The fundamental issue with the homosexuality issue is not tolerance. The vast bulk of the American public is tolerant of homosexuality.

The real issue is gay activists insisting on going way beyond tolerance: the rest of must must approve and promote homosexuality, or be branded bigots.

There is a huge gap between tolerance versus approval and promotion.

Do what you want behind closed doors. If you want to be known as gay, rather than as good at something, rather than as a quality person, then kiss it goodbye, Dumbo.

Most of us do not want your gayness taunted at us, and, frankly, doing so is to your own determent.

So, be known as a quality person and leave your gayness at your bedroom door.

If I choose not to associate with a behavior ( by the way, drop the gay gene baloney, Einstein) or a person I find repugnant, that is perfectly within my right of association. Its a free country, remember.....

The reality is many of us find all this emphasis on sexuality, whatever brand that is, repugnant and offensive........

Posted by: Hank on October 6, 2006 05:58 PM
20. Poor Irrelevant;
Unable to make his point over at HA, so he come back and posts for the sheeple. He did pick up some of the bad habits you are all so offended by though.
Speaking of Irellevant;
How'd that BIAW siphoned tax money do for you on GROAN purchase plan?
BIAW spending it on I-933 now?
I'd love to move in next to you and that Guvment employee wife of yours, but I'd have to be slumming it moving into a doublewide. But what a perfect place to have you pay me not to put in a stripclub. Does your wife need to earn a little extra income? There are still some non-pedophile Republicans out there into that Jabba the Hut type woman. (No Lap dances though, it could be premeditated murder)

How about your buddy O'leily showing Foley as a Democrat? Now there's no agenda on what you call news there.

Read John Warners Statement about Iraq today?
It involves reading, cause I am sure Faux news didn't show it.
Please use your internet for something other than picking the winner of the cutest Page for Foley contest.

Anything else from you? See you over at HA if Mrs. Hut has left you a pair.

Posted by: danw on October 6, 2006 06:26 PM
21. Mr. Rosenberg said among other things:

Back home in Palm Beach, Foley was a bit more "out" with his longtime partner, but he still had to play the game in D.C. Sad. And unnecessary, at least as soon as the GOP sees that the big picture requires an end to evangelical pander-politics.

It really makes me wonder what chance in hell McGavick has of winning this November. Sad.

Posted by: huckleberry on October 6, 2006 06:31 PM
22. Hank, well said!

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 6, 2006 07:29 PM
23. And the winner and still most depraved soul is...danw!

Posted by: Organization Man on October 6, 2006 09:42 PM
24. The Dems think that they can play both sides - damned if you do, damned if you don;t. Maybe the Republican House was hesitant to act because of perceived fallout if they did by the Dems/afraid they would be called for bashing gays. It was a stupid reason not to act, which is the consensus at this time and it may cost them.

The other side that the Dems can play is the "its all about the children" because of the underage kids that were involved. Of course, that is BS - they don't really care about that, because of their past actions. However, the approval rating of Congress - 25% doesn't help things. Except, if the Dems keep making an issue of it - this could backfire on them..

Posted by: KS on October 6, 2006 09:53 PM
25. And what of the growing love triangle movement in Western Washington? The triangle heart logo is appearing with increasing frequency. It's on the back of cars, on youth tee-shirts. When is the first pol going to come out of the large walk in closet with his two spouses?

Posted by: Jericho on October 7, 2006 07:44 AM
26. Oh and Matt your "Rules for Gay Republicans and Others" headline is not playing well in the halls of Heaven or in Peoria.

Not Sound Politics and Not Sound Living.

Posted by: Jericho on October 7, 2006 07:47 AM
27. Exellent! I agree with all your points.

Republicans need to reach out to more libertarian-oriented voters and one of the ways to do this is with tolerance for Gays.

For coverage on the libertarian Republican movement:

www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

Eric Dondero,
Former Bremerton/Port Orchard resident

Posted by: Eric Dondero on October 7, 2006 07:51 AM
28. And now that the Dhimmis are 'out' in favor of protecting 'our' children (they don't have any of their own - or very few) from gay pedophiles I assume that the Boyscouts will be lauded for the stand and that funding from the United (our) Way (or the highway) will be restored and local municipal thug pols will be inviting the Scouts to return to venues from which they have been banned.

Posted by: Jericho on October 7, 2006 07:53 AM
29. It's a very wide stream that flows into hell.

Posted by: Jericho on October 7, 2006 07:54 AM
30. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52330

If we want to protect 'our' kids maybe we should point out that it is those practising homosexuallity that are doing a hugely disproportionate share of the molesting. As with the Priest scandal the degenerate cultural leaders have shifted the discussion from the proclivities of the wanna-be molester to the leadership.

Posted by: Jericho on October 7, 2006 08:00 AM
31. Oh, yes, it's always "for the children". what a load of crapola. If Dems cared a whit about the children, they would be reforming our education system which encourages failure, they would admit that putting gays or lesbians in positions of authority over adolescents is not a good idea, they would stop murdering our young through abortion, they would take the brakes off social security reform so that our children have a chance at a financial future, they would give back some authority to parents over their own children rather than endowing the children with rights they don't even understand yet without being taught standards. But what really steams me is the attitude on both sides of the aisle that once they get to D.C. they can just forget about ethics and a standard of behavior because they are somehow "immune" and above it all. What crock.

Posted by: katomar on October 7, 2006 08:27 AM
32. Yes, Jericho, and it teems with pharisees.

Posted by: Nancy on October 7, 2006 10:22 AM
33. The bedroom police wing of the GOP will never let go of their stranglehold on the party unless people elect Republicans who reject the politics of gay bashing.

Tony Perkins was busy gay bashing gain this past week. he was promoting the idea that the Speaker couldn't deal with the Foley matter because the Speaker would be accussed of gay bashing. Good grief. He must think the GOP leadership is completely feckless.

Perkins goes on to say that it was a "network" of openly gay senior staff members in the House who protected Foley. Funny thing. It now appears that it was openly gay senior staffers who repeatedly pressed for action and got no answer from the Speaker.

Step number one for the GOP is to rebuke Tony Perkins. He's slyly promoting hate based stereotyping. He's a paper tiger - way out of touch with the views of most people he claims within his fold.

The state Senate GOP fell victim to similar paper tigers in our state when all but one of them refused to make it illegal to fire people just because they are gay. Legal firing of people just because they are gay drove thousands of people into some forms of the closet over the past 30 years - ever since a judge in Pierce County ruled that a school district could fire a teacher just because he was gay.

Turns out the only organized opposition to the proposed law was a few very right wing self promoting ministers and the leadership of the Catholic Church. And they turned out to be paper tigers too. The leadership Catholic Church had lost credibility on the subject. The other preachers never had much of a following.

And yet the GOP Senate followed them in lockstep.

Surely the GOP is better than that.

Posted by: Thor on October 8, 2006 08:55 AM
34. The only "gay bashing" I've seen this past week was done by the hypocritical Dhimmicrats. The same ones who embrace every variation of perversion under their multicultural umbrella...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 8, 2006 10:30 PM
35. The Democrats didn't make Foley cruse for pages.

The Democrats didn't make Hastert bury the many complaints (which as time goes on are only going to become more numerous).

The solution to this issue and larger problem is going to have to be found within the GOP.

Posted by: Marko on October 8, 2006 11:18 PM
36. At the risk of offending some…I offer this observation: What’s with Foley checking himself into alcohol rehab? Alcoholics p*ss in their neighbors front yard, they aren't out to dork teenage boys.

Posted by: JDH on October 9, 2006 10:34 AM
37. Thor at 33:

1. "their stranglehold on the party" - There is no such animal. Matt is right, traditional conservatives are just being pandered to. If they had a "stranglehold" we'd have a Federal Marriage Amendment already. What conservatives get from the RNC types is disingenuous posturing, instead, by hypocrites like Foley. Hastert's (and the pragmatic wing's) problem is that 70 percent of the general public is not "politically correct" on this issue like Foley and McGavick and SoundPolitics and the Slade-o-philes are. GOP officeholders have to "pander" (that is, offer up slimy compromises) if they want to stay in office as Republicans. I wish they'd stop pandering, frankly. That way we could run some actual Republicans. You'd know this if you were a Republican. Perhaps you're a libertarian.

2. "Legal firing of people just because they are gay" - American Freedom is being able to fire anyone - if you don't like the look of their mustache, or the way they mispronounce your name, or the color of their girlfriend's convertible - because it's your damn company. Don't like somebody's hiring preferences? Start your own company. It's a free country. (we thought.) That applies to gay, ugly, male, female, transsexual, etc., etc.
If you don't get that you're not so libertarian after all. It's called FREEDOM. I can hire you or not. You can work for me or refuse.

It's not like that in China. You might like it there.

Posted by: Doug Parris on October 10, 2006 09:42 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?