General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'll say it flat out. Lindsey Graham is gay.
There's nothing wrong with that except he is a monumental hypocrite.
Linda Ketner and what she said is why I believe it. She has close ties to both the political and LGBT communities. When she made her comments about Graham and others, it barely made a ripple. Most people really don't care unless you 'do something in the street and scare the horses.' Nobody called anybody out or sued anybody. She said it in a very matter-of-fact way. She's a great character and has a great bio.
This fact will be flung in this election though and flung with a nasty edge. The Teaspitters have no manners.
This is an article about her and the comments about Graham are in it:
In what looked at least from the outside as one of the most unlikely outcomes of the 2008 election cycle, Democrat Linda Ketner came within two percentage points of beating entrenched Establishment wingnut Henry Brown in a gerrymandered South Carolina district specifically drawn to be an easy win for Republicans. At the same time, Obama only managed 42% in the district. Linda was the only South Carolina Democrat who came close to ousting an incumbent last year. Until near the end of the campaign the DCCC and the punditocracy didnt have a clue. The fact that Linda is openly gay and openly progressive on social issues and very outspoken caused quite a few people to not even give the race a second look.
Ive been trying to persuade her to run again in 2010 and asked her to come by and meet our community today. Before asking you to join us in the Firedoglake comments section, let me share with you a helpful bio her brother had some fun with:
age 8 also found Linda showing other early signs of activism. She uniformly drank from water fountains marked colored instead of the ones marked white and made sure to ride in the back of the bus (for which she was thrown off the bus more than once).
In 1961, her widely known pit-bull stubbornness was evidenced at a piano recital. After having blown the heck out of Moonlight Sonata in 1960, she announced to her mom and dad she would not be playing in the recital of 61. Her mother announced back and louder that indeed she would play in the recital end of subject. So, Linda found a poison ivy field, bathed her hands up to her elbows in the stuff and spent the next 6 weeks wrapped in bandages. She, however, did NOT play in the recital of 61 or any thereafter!
-In 69 she started college and was elected President of the Freshman Class. She neglected her studies woefully and spent all of her time marching in the Civil Rights movement and plotting with her friends as to how to save the world. They had almost accomplished it (saving the world) when they graduated and were dispersed. Lindas mom blames the 60s for almost everything she doesnt understand about Linda.
I asked her if she thought being upfront about being gay, even campaigning with her partner of 9 years, Beth Huntley, impacted the race. "When you lose by such a tight margin, anything could have played a role." In focus groups she found that people didnt care about her personal sexual preference but respected her honesty. "We have more gay people serving in South Carolina than probably in anyplace in the United States; theyre just not out of the closet. We have an awful lot of people in the closet Lindsey Graham, Glenn McConnell whos our Senate president pro tem, our Lt Governor I obviously lost the conservative, religious crazy vote, but I would have anyway because Im pro-choice It got more national attention than it did local attention; it was no secret to anybody around here." She actually won in Charleston County.
<snip>
http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/30/blue-america-meet-linda-ketner/
She is very wealthy because she inherited Food Lion money from her daddy. She financed her campaign with her money and she got little outside help. Coming that close to defeating an incumbent Republican male in a majority Republican district was amazing.
I wish she would run again. She will probably have to wait until the Tea Party crazies die down. They will die down even here.
lame54
(35,290 posts)Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)I don't know the judgement on Bachmann.
polichick
(37,152 posts)lame54
(35,290 posts)pinto
(106,886 posts)I assess him on his actions in the Senate, not the bedroom.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)I said nothing was wrong with that except he is a hypocrite.
I made this statement because everybody quibbles or steps around this issue. It will be an issue in this election because of the Tea Party.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)n/t
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)He's gay, because he's a middle-aged bachelor? There's a lot of issues to attack Republicans on without getting into completely unsubstantiated rumors about their personal lives.
I recommend you self-delete.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)I have stated why I believe it, and I will stand by Linda Ketner.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but that head butt gif crack me up every time.
nolabear
(41,963 posts)He's hypocritical in that he harms humans. I don't think this is a good place to go.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)anti-LGBT issues.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The middle-school-style "oooh, he's so GAYYYYYYYY" is unnecessary.
Ms. Toad
(34,072 posts)monmouth3
(3,871 posts)eissa
(4,238 posts)Such accusations against my person just gives me the vapors! *in best southern belle accent*
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)given the context of the article...why do some of you straight people feel it is?
CurtEastPoint
(18,644 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)It won't make the national news or anything.
I tend to think some people are still in the mindset that there's something "different" about being gay (besides the obvious) so you shouldn't talk about it.
Ms. Toad
(34,072 posts)It is.
If the OP wants to tout Linda Ketler - great. The article posted is about Kinda Ketler, not Lindsay Graham, aside from an inflammatory headline speculatively outing him.
The only purpose for bringing it up is to use it as something negative the "teaspitters" will rebel against. In other words - using homosexuality as something negative for political gain.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)And you "It is" makes me think you're not open for discussion about this.
Ms. Toad
(34,072 posts)I am not open for discussion about whether speculating about someone's sexuality, with the express intent that it will be used against him (by the "teaspitters" , is ever appropriate.
If you have trouble with his positions - attack his positions. Since they are in line with those who support him that isn't nearly as effective as using the speculation that he is gay as a weapon to encourage those who would otherwise support him to turn against him. Again - using being gay as a weapon is never acceptable.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)On the one hand, some consider it to be particularly hypocritical for a closeted gay politician to take stances which are contrary to the majority opinion of gay people.
On the other hand, some consider it to unexceptional for a politician to take positions which are, in some sense, contradicted by a personal characteristic of said politician.
For example, there are any number of female politicians who hold positions considered by others to be "anti-women". Some of the leading voices against positions deemed "pro women's rights" have been women - e.g. Phyllis Schlafly and her organization's longstanding crusade against things like the Equal Rights Amendment and so on.
Incongruously, we accept the fact that there are those who consider their personal beliefs to be distinguishable from their positions on matters of public policy. There are any number of Roman Catholic politicians, for example, who believe that abortion should be legal as a matter of public policy, and that is a separate question from their personal beliefs on the question.
The question seems to hinge on what are "apparent" personal conditions.
For example, nobody goes running around saying "Clarence Thomas is black!" when he decides against the Voting Rights Act or "Michelle Bachman is a woman!" when she holds forth on reproductive rights.
We accept, in these other contexts, that indeed Clarence Thomas may take positions with which a majority of African Americans disagree, or that Michelle Bachman may take positions with which a majority of women disagree. But we accept these things because it is apparent that Clarence Thomas is black and that Michelle Bachman is a woman.
So, it is seen by some as unseemly that, while anyone else is able to take what are seen as positions contrary to their personal characteristics, it is somehow subject to condemnation if a person does so, and happens to be gay.
Adding to the problem is that saying "So and so is gay" is, in other contexts, meant as a general condemnation of that person. That has a different sort of aroma than saying "Clarence Thomas is Black" or "Michelle Bachman is a woman".
xfundy
(5,105 posts)Good OP.
JI7
(89,249 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)well fuck him the hypocrite!
tularetom
(23,664 posts)struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)as you note, it's completely fair to point out hypocrisy; (3) making the accusation, even when pointing out hypocrisy, fails completely if one doesn't have damn good proof; and (4) if one makes such accusations repeatedly, without having damn good proof, the accuser rather than the target loses credibility
So my advice is don't even think about playing this card unless you can get damn good proof, and even then don't even think about playing the card except when the target has just said or done something that would be universally regarded as disgusting hypocrisy if the card were played
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)is proof enough for the OP.
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)want to stick their noses into other people's private lives then I do think their own hypocrisies can become fair game
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)I said exactly why I believe he is gay. I believe Linda Ketner is a reliable source for the reasons I stated.
Nowhere in my remarks did I use the phrase 'middle aged bachelor' nor did I make any reference to his age or marital status. You jumped hard to those conclusions and thought I said that or thought that is what I meant.
If I meant to use about his marital status and age to prove my point, I would have said so straight out. Those 2 items alone are poor proof IMHO.
If you disagree with me, that is your right. However, don't draw false conclusions or attack me for something I did not say in any way.