Can Someone Explain Why Who GOP'ers Live With Matters?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

I see a couple of threads calling out republicans for their living arrangements. I have failed to see any relevance in this concept.

I'm outraged over the Foley matter due to the failings of republican leaders of Congress to do what was right in order to protect underaged children instead of doing what was politically advantageous for them at the time. I'm outraged over Foley's actions since they were that of a sexual predator. I'm outraged because as usual, the republicans are hypocrites that only care about themselves and will do whatever necessary to hide truth, spin truth and maintain power while foresaking the safety of others.

I am in full belief that these are the reasons why most of us are upset over the foley issue. It is for the lack of responsibility and disgusting sexual predator actions of a member of Congress, along with the coverup of it. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Why are we now posting threads about who GOP'ers live with, or what their living situations are, as if homosexuality is something bad that we can pin against them? Why does their living situations matter whatsoever? They shouldn't, ya know. I couldn't care less about who any republican lives with. It is completely irrelevant to me.

I know some would say that they're just pointing out republican hypocrisy, but I disagree. It is pointing out our own. They'd only be hypocrites because of their constant smearing of the homosexual lifestyle. But if we attempt to smear them for the same, even under the guise of calling out their hypocrisy, all we are doing is giving the perception that there is something wrong or inappropriate with their living situation. That's why we'd be hypocrites. Homosexuality and personal living situations are either none of our business and nothing wrong with them, or there is something wrong with them. If we take the side of the former, then in spite of and regardless of the fact that republicans believe the latter, we can't cross over when they are guilty of the same. If we believe the former, then we must also believe that when they do it there is nothing wrong with it and is none of our business.

So I fail to see what the relevance is whatsoever to who Hastert or any other republicans currently or have lived with.

The issue here is the deplorable act of and subsequent coverup of a member of congress using his position to be a sexual predator of underage children.

[KittyWampus]

1. If Hastert Is Living "A Gay Lifestyle" After Making Life Miserable &

DANGEROUS for millions of other gay people who are honest about their sexual orientation... then it's got to be made public.

It is not a smear.

It's an airing of FACT.

Let the chips fall where they may. But GOP voters should know the TRUTH about Hastert and others in the GOP.

Let them decide to vote for people who say one thing and then do another.
Who profess to be against this but secretly engage in that.

Frankly, I think your opening post is bullshit.

[LeftCoast]

14. First you say 'if' and then you say it's a fact? Which is it?

:eyes:

[KittyWampus]

17. Um, 'IF' Hastert is gay (I don't know definitively, do you?) then saying

so is not a smear, it's a 'FACT'.

IF Hastert is gay then saying so is simply stating the truth.

[napi21]

2. The problem is that all GOPers have been hammering the gay issue

for YEARS! Certainly not everyman/men who live with other guys are gay, but you and I know, if this wereaDem. scandal,the GOP would be making all kind of assumptions!

I personally don't GAS if they're gay or not, except, it makes them hypocrites!!! All the ppreach isdamning all gays for their lifestyle, and "We won't have anything to do with them", so when it turns out some of they are gay and have been lying for years, it matters!

[Warren Stupidity]

3. If the leadership of the God Hates Fags party is gay

that is a huge issue.

Google 'the frank rule'.

"The Frank Rule
During a GOP campaign concerning homosexuality, Frank threatened to out a number of "gay-baiting" Republican fellow congressmen. He stated that it is unacceptable to out a closeted gay person, unless that person uses their power or notoriety to hurt gay people.<2> Many members of the LGBT community adhere to this rule in their own relationships with prominent individuals."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank

It is entirely fair to raise the issue. The hypocrisy and dishonesty of the ruling party needs to be uncovered and exposed, it needs to be made an issue. They are the party that has used homophobia as a wedge issue in order to consolidate their hold on power. They are the ones attempting to write discrimination against homosexuals into the constitution. Why on earth should we not use this issue against them?

[aquart]

7. I agree with the Frank Rule.

I suspect most of us do.

But if the closeted gays protected Foley in part because he was able to blackmail them..........that was a very mutual exchange going on. And it's time for it to be over. At least for now.

[Blue_In_AK]

4. It's the hypocrisy

[originalpckelly]

5. People are gossipy...I don't think anyone on DU really dislikes...

them or smearing for the sake of smearing because they are gay. They are very nosy.

It is the same reason people buy all those gossip magazines or watch reality shows. In a sense it is voyeurism.

[Saturday]

6. I don't see why you can't understand.

I'm not smearing them for being gay! I'm smearing them for being anti gay in public and pro gay in private....yes, hypocrites. AND because of that hypocrisy they have not protected our children (pages).

[madokie]

8. I could care less their ethical makeup, gender or political persuasion

damn sure could care less whether they are male, female or gay, all I want is representation of the people in their districts, period. but thats just me. whats good for most is whats good for me or always seems to be

[acmavm]

The only thread I've read on this very issue is the one that shows that

it's IMPOSSIBLE for Hastert not to have known about the Foley mess because he lives with the guy who called him out.

I'm wondering about something. You say people here are hypocrites because they point out the fact that of the gay bashers in positions of power are people who are eating their own for their damn own benefit, to further their own careers, to make more money. What I'm wondering about is what is your agenda? Why do you think this needs to be kept quiet? Do you understand what hypocrisy really is?

I don't agree with, or for that matter, understand you or whatever point it is you are trying to make at all.

[last1standing]

9. It does matter when these people are trying to deny others the same thing.

While most people here don't care who sleeps with whom, it becomes our responsibility to care when the people trying hardest to make sure that you are forced to sleep with the person they tell you to whether you want to or not are in turn sleeping with the very same people they have stopped you from sleeping with.

In a way that can be understood, they're God Damned hypocrites steeped in a culture of privilege! They're quite willing to sell your rights to the highest bidder (in this case the christofascists) in order to live a lifestyle not available to you or me. If they are comfortable trying to make it illegal for gay people to sleep together, then we have a moral obligation expose their hypocrisy. Anything less is aiding and abetting.

[spanone]

10. If Al Gore lived with a couple of guys while married to Tipper, I'd find

that strange. Same here. I posted this only as an observation.

[MADem]

11. It's not the living arrangements that are at issue by themselves

Harold Ford lives with four or five fellow congressmen.

What is at issue is the senior-subordinate aspect, as well as the relationships of public people, the laws they pass and how all that meshes with their private lives. It's an issue of hypocrisy, not orientation. Pro-life Bob Barr had a problem that could be compared to these situations, when he paid for his wife's abortion while excorating the practice.

Also, it IS odd for a congressman to live with staffers. And then, there's this excellent SALON article that discusses private and public lives, and all of the tap dancing going on. I've snipped a few salient points, but urge you to read it in full (free if you go through the watch ad bit). If we aren't going to talk about David Drier's significant other, we shouldn't say a single word about Hillary Clinton or Laura Bush. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/10/07/gay_politicians/index_np.html


Open the closets on Capitol Hill
Silence about gay politicians is a relic of an era when gayness meant secrecy and shame. It's a disservice to gay people, to voters, and to the politicians themselves.
By Louis Bayard

Oct. 07, 2006 | In 1960, when Gore Vidal ran for Congress, his Republican opponent tried to spread word that Vidal was a homosexual. This was not, strictly speaking, news......The same media outlets that would have jumped all over a heterosexual scandal turned strangely mum the moment homosexuality entered the picture......one thing is emerging with new clarity: The mainstream media's treatment of gay politicians is essentially unchanged from when Gore Vidal ran for office 46 years ago. This long-standing policy of nondisclosure can now safely be called a disservice -- to gay people, to voters, to the politicians themselves, to everyone. It must change.

Since Foley came to Washington in 1995, his sexuality has been, as they like to say, an open secret. For those of us working on Capitol Hill at the time (I was a Democratic communications director), it was common knowledge. And yet, outside of the alternative or gay media, you would have been hard-pressed to find a newspaper or wire service or radio or television network willing to mention it. Even during Foley's abortive 2003 U.S. Senate bid, when rumors about his private life reached such a pitch that he felt obliged to dismiss them as "revolting and unforgivable," the mainstream media refused to do what they had done so gleefully in the case of Gary Hart or Bill Clinton.....This bizarre reluctance to positively identify Foley as gay -- a reluctance so uniform as to qualify as a code of conduct -- has been explained away as chivalry, as delicacy, as respect for privacy. It is none of these things. It is an inherited squeamishness, the relic of an era in which homosexuality meant secrecy and shame.

That era has passed, despite the fondest wishes of some conservatives, and it is time that the American media ....end the hypocritical double standard that shields gay politicians....Do I mean "outing"? Yes -- within limits. I hold no brief for those hysterics on the far right who want every homosexual working in the Republican Party to be called out by name -- as a precursor, presumably, to being expunged. Nor do I think that gay congressional staffers forfeit all rights to privacy simply by virtue of their jobs. But I do believe that every man or woman who courts public office must be held to some public standard of honesty -- of coherence.....The decision to come out is personal. So is the decision to run for office. Why should the second choice be privileged over the first? Why should homosexuality be privileged over heterosexuality? Why should a same-sex partner (Foley has apparently had one for many years) be any less a subject of discussion than a wife or husband?

The answer is as dismaying as it is obvious. Some 33 years after the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses, our mainstream media persist in believing that something unnatural, something embarrassing, something other adheres to the condition of being gay. Or else -- and here I'm bending over as far backward as I can go -- they believe that equating a gay relationship with a straight relationship is simply too controversial a statement to make in the pages of a major metropolitan newspaper or over the airwaves of a major commercial network. ....

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. It doesn't matter to me, but there's a compelling case to be made..

that it matters to his supporters.

Politics sucks but there are rules, even if we would prefer to be blind to them.

We can't do anything about Republicans ignorance, judgementality and predjudice except fully capitalize on those flaws to get conscientious people in power.

Machivellian? Perhaps.

[grasswire]

13. there is a more important implication

If the person is blackmailable and in leadership with access to national secrets, then his/her behavior becomes a national security risk. Example: Jeff Gannon threatened blackmail against Joe Biden, who happens to be the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs. What do you think Joe Biden would do to conceal any behavioral secrets he might have? Would he give up information to someone working for one of our enemies? That's the risk in allowing these open secrets to lie out of public knowledge.

[LeftCoast]

15. It's just a PC way to call them faggot

It's disgusting and wrong.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. What is disgusting is gay republicans

pushing homophobic hate legislation. That is disgusting. But you are right, we should play nice and always take the high road. This has worked so very well for us over the last 25 years I cannot imagine why we would do anything different.

[LeftCoast]

21. Who said anything about playing nice?

[skids]

16. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank#The_Frank_Rule

[madmusic]

19. Hypocrisy.

And it will keep the Far Freakin' Right home.

[Cha]

20. If hasert is living with his

chief of staff then they have more than enough time to go over matters of the House..tom foley and his penchant for preying on Pages for instance.

snip~
"Remember that Kirk Fordham, one-time Chief of Staff to Mark Foley (R-FL), resigned Wednesday as Rep. Tom Reynolds' (R-NY) Chief of Staff and promptly announced that he had warned Hastert's staff about Foley's page problem as far back and 2003. Specifically, he said he repeatedly asked Hastert's Chief of Staff, Scott Palmer, to take action to deal with Foley.

Palmer promptly denied it.

Now, according to the Post, another congressional staffer has come forward to say that Fordham is telling the truth and Palmer is lying."


More..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2338753

snip~
"There are plenty of odd couple Congressmen who have roomed together on Capitol Hill, but I have never heard of a chief of staff who rooms with his boss. It is beyond unusual. But it must have its advantages. Anything they forget to tell each other at the office, they have until bedtime to catch up on. And then there's breakfast for anything they forgot to tell each other before falling asleep. And then there's all day at the office. Hastert and Palmer are together more than any other co-workers in the Congress."

More..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2340711