Is outing Senator Craig playing into the right wing's hands?

[Jack Rabbit]

Written from two of my posts on another thread:

Seantor Craig was outed this afternoon. This is part of the fallout of the pedophile scandle in Congress.

This issue has come to the forefront because Mr. Foley is a pedophile. He also happens to be gay.

The fact the Foley is has nothing to do with his being a pedophile. It only oriented him toward 15- or 16-year-old teenage boys instead of 12- or 14-year-old girls.

The scandal is about pedophilia, not homosexuality. Moreover, we are angry at the Republican leadership for covering up Foley's behavior. Again, the offense is pedophilia, not homosexuality. The Republican response has been to make rumblings about an anti-gay witch hunt. That is the kind of red herring we've come to expect of the GOP in the age of Karl Rove.

To my knowledge, no one has accused Senator Craig (or any of the others on Weyrich's list) of pedophilia.

The list of homosexuals is part of the Republican anti-gay witch hunt. Bear in mind that the source of the list is Paul Weyrich, a long time right wing activist.

Weyrich believes that gay Republicans are hypocrites (and so do I, if they're in the closet and voting for DOMA or against outlawing job discrimination). Weyrich will be leading the chorus of "Shame, shame, Senator," when Senator Craig (or whoever) is outed.

By giving a rat's ass about which Republicans Weyrich wants to out, we are aiding and abetting a witch hunt aimed at out gay brothers and sisters.

We must not get sucked into this. We think Foley is a villain, but not because he's gay; we think Foley is a villain because he is an active pedophile. We think Foley and Craig are hypocrites because they have profited from doing legislative violence to their gay brothers and sisters; Weyrich doesn't think there's anything wrong with their voting records. He thinks gays should be persecuted; he will promote the idea that gay people are a danger to society (whether he really believes that steer manure or not is irrelevant) and that the Republican Party, as the party of national security and family values, must persecute gays regardless of whether they hide in Republican ranks or not.

We may be in the position of shaming Senator Craig for his hypocrisy, but defending him from being stripped of his position in the Republican Party because he is gay. We'll have to let the voters of Idaho deal with his hypocrisy. There is nothing wrong, in and of itself, with being gay.

I suggest we think now about how to do that gracefully, because people like Weyrich are going to try to make it as awkward for us as they can.

Oringianly discussion .

[lvx35]

1. Yeah, what's inconsistent about being a gay Dem?

Nothing at all. He's gay, he's with the party that thinks its okay to be gay, and he's not a pedo. Its different than being a gay republican pedophile whose heading the caucus for missing and exploited kids...

[whistle]

2. Does this mean the price of butt-plugs is about to skyrocket?

[B Calm]

3. NO

[mondo joe]

4. They aren't MY gay brothers and sisters.

This is a political vulnerability for the right, and I say we exploit the fuck out of it.

Split the GOP elite from their fundy base.

[Lex]

6. "Split the GOP elite from their fundy base."

Correct. :thumbsup:

[confludemocrat]

5. Why all the handwringing about this at DU today? Go for the fuckin throat

Hit these bloody criminals with any weapon handy.

[mondo joe]

8. It's a weakness of the left. We are too conditioned to not

out people that we are fumbling over our own opportunity.

[xchrom]

7. paul weyrich is a corner stone in the republick party's

re-inventing itself from the 70's -- he is an extraordinarily savvy guy when it comes to republick party politics.

the republick party is in the process of attacking gay men -- a la the catholic church.

rather than dealing with pedophilia or inappropriate attraction to young people -- what ever -- they will redefine the problem to be with gay men. period.

now there are some very well educated people forming these responses -- and they are aware that social conservatism is the best friend of child abusers of any sort.

their very rigid, incurious ways lend a helping hand to the perps.

they will also hurt a good many innocent people along the way -- but it doesn't matter to them.

creating the enemy is what's important to social conservatives.

creating and pointing every engine of law and order they can manage in the direction of the enemy.

they will pull out every bogus report of their own creations to damage who ever is the target of their enmity.

in this case gay men.

for liberals and progressives the enemy is and must be social conservatism -- it's way of creating fear, bigotry and hatred in the
population.
individuals aren't our enemy.

it's an idea -- it's the manipulation of the idea.

the nazis did it -- the catholic church has done it in the past.

and for all the world after casting around du to day -- it looks like they're gonna do it again.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Thank you. You get the point.

Now that he's been outed, I'm not saying we shouldn't shame Senator Craig for his betrayal of other gays.

But I am saying we need to be very careful about how we do this. Aiding and abetting Weyrich is not something we want to do.

[xchrom]

11. well, the common wisdon is that some how these guys are stupid.

they are not -- and they are extraordinarily malevolent and patient beyond words.

if we win in november -- that's a battle and that's all.

i'm waiting to the democratic party burn with a passion for liberalism, progressvism and socialism to match the burning passion of corporatists, the baptist church, evangelicals and anti-tax freaks.

then i'll begin to think we all get it.

[leftstreet]

22. He should give them the option of "outing" themselves first

The hypocrisy sucks, no doubt. But he disrespects all people by not giving these gay/anti-gay-legislation asshats the opportunity to choose whether or not to speak first.

[Dr Fate]

26. What opportunities were given to gay folks by these hypocrites?

When, in turn, did these anti-gay, gay Republicans give regular old gay folks any opportunities for dignity or self respect in any manner?

I disagree 100% for strategic purposes too-If you tell them first, then thwey have time to spin or fabricate counter-scandals for a distraction.

[LiviaOlivia]

9. Lying hypocrites who wield power over us need to be outed.

They are not above the law. Would they they show you any mercy?

[TlalocW]

12. We think Foley is a villain, but I also think Craig is a villain

He's either gay or had homosexual encounters (I don't know if they're one and the same), but he is part of the opposition who thinks gays should be second-class citizens. That makes him a villain in my book. If he were black and disguised himself as a white man to gain acceptance into a hypothetical political party whose official platform was to keep black people down, then I would want him exposed as well.

This country has gone into the shitter because of the last six years of total republican rule. I don't care what gets them out of power - whether it's exposing them as hypocritical homosexuals, shady business practicioners, or kitten-kickers.

I just want them gone.

TlalocW

[Dr Fate]

13. What if Weyrich's list was to black mail "Maverick" Republicans...

...who may go against Bush/Rove?

Your post does not entertain this option- if true, it negates your entire hypothesis.

Your theory supposes that the GOP would risk swing-voters replacing GOP candidates with the DEM- just to purge gays from his own party.

My theory makes more sense to me than the slash & burn, throw the baby-out-with-the-bath-water strategy that you suggest.

[Gato Moteado]

14. are there any maverick repukes?

they used to say mccain was one but he's proven to be another cookie cutter repiglican puppet.

[Dr Fate]

16. No. Especially not if they are being blackmailed for being gay.

Which is why I put the words in quotes.

I should have said "would be mavericks."

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Please explain your theory

We know this is Weyrich's list. It names gay Republicans in Congress.

Why is he doing that?

I don't think these people were in any danger of going against Bush. They stuck by him just like straight Republicans.

[Dr Fate]

17. Maybe some "stuck by him just like straight Republicans" b/c of blackmail

And it could have been over any given issue-even smaller stuff. It could explain some of the lock-step votes & postitions we have seen.

Blackmail for pro-Bush/Rove political unity makes more sense than using it in a way that could potentially cause a free-fall purge of many members of your own party.

[Dr Fate]

20. Also- it could be a type of "hush" blackmail

Maybe the list was kept to blackmail any Repukes who might potentially spill the beans about any number of other scandals in order to cover their own hides.

An example is how a few Repukes are turning on each other over the Foley scandal- ones who are being blackmailed would be less likely to do that kind of thing.

[Jack Rabbit]

27. That's a lot of congresscritters you are assuming are being blackmailed

I would find that kind of operation very difficult to manage, especially since most of them aren't gay.

[Dr Fate]

28. That critique applies equally-if not more so-to your theory as well.

If most of the folks on the list are not gay and there is no proof, then I doubt their inclusion on the list could be used to "fool" Democrats into outing them. If anything, it is over-done and would make them back off.

I think if any Republican is making black lists of their members, it would be a blackmail list before it would be a "lets fool Democrats into outing some of these guys so we can out them too" list.

Another reason your theory falls flat for me is the GOP does not usually sit around and wait for us to smear them before they smear us-usually they smear us and sling mud at us whether we provoke them to or not.

In any event, you are right to suggest that we dont know 100% who all compiled that list or what those names represent one way or the other- other than what some blog folks told us...

[Jack Rabbit]

30. Here's my problem with that

First of all, we know who made this list: Paul Weyrich. Paul Weyrich is not Karl Rove. He's nasty, too, but in a very different way.

Forget the GOP, at least in the way you are using the term. It is a collective noun; it is an abstraction that cannot act on its own. Somebody who associates himself with the GOP acts, but the GOP itself cannot.

Karl Rove is a street fighter. He has no idealistic principles. He will do what it takes to promote the political fortunes of G. W. Bush. Nothing to that end is too low or slimy for him.

Paul Weyrich is an ideologue. His world view is actually Platonist. There is an ideal for which man strives and his idea of it and we must shun those things that stand in our way of reaching. He sees the Republican Party a vehicle for reaching that ideal, but the ideal is still a lot bigger and a lot more important than the GOP. He'll throw the GOP over in order to further his agenda as soon as he has attached himself to it.

Weyrich's world view is Christian, capitalist and Americo-centric. Christian means many different things to different people, but to Weyrich it is something inconsistent with abortion, homosexuality and dirty books. He thinks nothing of outing a gay Republican right now.

As long as the Republicans held a narrow majority in Congress, people like Senator Craig were useful to him. So what if Craig was a gay in the closet? He still dutifully went out on the Senate floor and supported DOMA. Weyrich is not stupid. He can read the numbers as well as anybody else. The GOP is going down next month. Not only that, but the next President is likely to be a Democrat with majorities in both houses of Congress.

What Weyrich wants to do is regroup the right wing movement. He wants to use this coming period when the Republicans will be in the political wilderness to strengthen the grip of the right on the Republicans and purify the party. He actually thinks having fewer but better Republicans will make the party stronger.

Overall, Rove would not do the things you say the GOP wouldn't do. But Weyrich would and Rove doesn't have a lot of control over him. Right now, Rove has even less control over an ideologue like Weyrich. With the Republicans fixing to take a drubbing, Rove can't tell Weyrich squat.

[Dr Fate]

31. From my POV, You said a whole lot of nothing there.

And *I* dont know who all was involved in preparing that list or what they prepared it for- *I* only know what is being claimed by various sources on the internets.

Even after reading your long post, I still dont see why a Republican would be so willing to have his own people smeared as gay hypocrites just so they can attack DEMS, considering how much they attack us whether they are provoked or not.

Basically, I read your theory as just more scared-of-our-own-shadow, nail bitting, hand-wringing and excuses for not fighting Republicans- pretty much the same as it ever was.

To me, it is nothing more that the old "Keep your powder dry- the Republicans/media will be mean to us if we tell the truth about them" nonsense. Fact is, they will be "mean to us" whether we fight them back or not.

[Jack Rabbit]

34. Who said keep your powder dry?

Not me.

But you should be aware that Weyrich's list is to start a witch hunt against gays. You can out Senator Craig and shame him for being a gay hypocrite. However, be prepared to defend him against charges of pedophilia. That ish where Weyrich will take us with this.

You don't think so? It's a whole lot of nothing?

I give you Exhibit A. This is a letter, according to the report composed by Weyrich for a coalition of "socially conservative organiztions" (I object to calling right wing "conservative") under the umbrella name the Arlington Group. Among the signatories are Weyrich, Gary Bauer, Don Wildmon and Tony Perkins. Is that Republican enough for you?

Here is what it says:

The Executive Committee of the Arlington Group strongly condemns the activities of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), which have been reported by various news sources. We further ask for a full investigation, and should Mr. Foley be found to have broken any laws that he be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law . . . .

Let us be perfectly clear: Any sexual involvement with minors is abominable. It is more troubling when a member of Congress uses his or her position to sexually exploit a minor. It should go without saying that all members of Congress are in a position of public trust and must be held to a higher standard, avoiding even the appearance of inappropriate behavior.

We are very concerned that the early warnings of Mr. Foley's odd behavior toward young male pages may have been overlooked or treated with deference, fearing a backlash from the radical gay rights movement because of Mr. Foley's sexual orientation. It appears that the integrity of the conservative majority has given way to political correctness, trading the virtues of decency and respect for that of tolerance and diversity. No one should be surprised at the results of such a tragic exchange.

The leadership must demand the resignation of any member who has acted improperly in this matter. Indeed we call on any member, Congressional staffer, page or other citizen who has information concerning any sexual contact between a member of Congress and a minor to report it immediately to House or Senate leadership . . . .

The Foley scandal is just one more reminder that America desperately needs to return to the Judeo-Christian values that have served as a foundation of our nation from its inception.

The conflation of pedophelia and homosexuality should be alarming. Of course, this piece of evidence also should establish that this group of Republicans are perfectly "willing to have (their) own people smeared as gay hypocrites" or as protectors of such.

Their target is not pedophiles; it's gays. They don't care what party label the gay is wearing.

Exhibit B is a partial transcript of Weyrich's interview on NPR (October 4).

WEYRICH: Here is the real problem. It has been known for many years that Congressman Foley was a homosexual. Homosexuals tend to be preoccupied with sex. The idea that he should be continued -- or should have been continued as chairman of the Committee on Missing and Exploited Children is, you know, given their knowledge of that, is just outrageous.

Do you still not think Weyrich, a Republican strategist, isn
Weyrich is by no means the only one. Here is Exhibit C, Chris Matthews interviewing Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Hardball (October 3). In addition of conflating pedophilia and homosexuality.

MATTHEWS: Who are you more loyal to? Your values, or your allegiance to the Republican Party?

PERKINS: My values without question, and I think that‘s what you‘re going to find out with the majority of values voters. They have—they work with the Republican Party because the Republican Party, rightly or wrongly, has been held out as the guardian of family values. This clearly is not a family value. This drives, I think another wedge, a deeper wedge, between social conservatives and the Republican Party.

Well, sir, I'm still sticking to my hypothesis. You may call it a whole lot of nothing, but it's a whole lot of nothing supported with facts.

It's your move.

[Bluebear]

18. What's Craig's position on DOMA? That is VERY much alive in this saga.

If he is in the closet surreptiously shooting bullets at other gays, I say to hell with him. Gay is not the issue here, he is a hypocritical loser.

[WinkyDink]

19. If it'll result in fewer votes for the Republicans, I'm for it.

Can't control voters' responses.

[brentspeak]

21. In many ways, yes

The Republicans already have their back to the wall with myriad scandals, and were doing just fine shooting themselves in the foot. But even GOP rank-and-file who are homophobes will have sympathy for one of their own who's had his personal life maliciously tossed out onto the street for all to gawk at.

Even if Mike Rodgers isn't a Democrat, people are naturally going to think the Democrats are behind these outings.

[slackmaster]

23. I'm not convinced that Craig has been outed

I have not yet seen anything verifiable, just hearsay on the Web.

Some people are so quick to accept it as fact without checking, that my skepticism is multiplied.

This is how the demagogues use you, folks. Black propagandists from the enemy side, and self-serving Pied Pipers among our own ranks.

[Dr Fate]

24. I too want to see some proof- but if it exists, we need not be so timid.

We seem to be spooked by our own shawdows everytime we dig up something good on the GOP- even when we CAN prove it.

[slackmaster]

25. With proof we should push the hypocrisy as hard as we can

Without it we should be very careful, as an unconfirmed story can easily work to our detriment.

[davidwparker]

29. No. It's helping the outed not to be hypocrites. Jesus warned about

that you know.

[Zhade]

32. They'd lie about us even if hypocrites weren't being rightfully outed.

So it's a moot point.

[Dr Fate]

33. Thanks. That point has been lost on the meek wing of our party for years.

The whole "Keep your powder dry-if we do THAT- the GOP & media will be mean to us" (Said while whimpering, shuddering & wringing hands)

I gotta news flash for the hand-wringing, nail biting wing of our party- the GOP and media will be "mean to us" whether we provoke them or not. They will lie, smear and stretch the facts about us no matter how little or how much we fight them.

How many times are the DEM "leaders" and their excuse makers going to let these people attack me and my family with LIES before they attack them back with FACTS????

[noiretextatique]

35. shaming, yes...defending no

craig knows the dogs he freely chose to lie down with, so if they decide to bite in the ass: so be it. he didn't have a problem with weyrich and others when he was running for election, so why should we "protect" him from them now?

[Jack Rabbit]

36. Hello, old friend.

I disagree. This is an attempt to conflate pedophilia and homosexuality. If we kick back and just let the right wing eats its own, they will turn on us after conflating the two different things, and claim that by standing up for gay rights we are standing up for pedophiles.

It's nonsense. I know it's nonsense and you know it's nonsense. That doesn't stop them from saying it. They are already saying it. I don't want to see wimpy DLC types out there licking their fingers and holding it to the wind before deciding whether it would be better to educate the public or just validate popular ignorance.

I am not saying we should protect him from charges that he is a homosexual hypocrite. However, we must make it clear that what we find wrong with his behavior is not that the hypocrite is gay, but that he went on the floor of the Senate and voted for regressive legislation while hiding in the closet.

And when Weyrich and Perkins or some other baby-faced thug implies that Senator Craig is a pedophile because he is gay, we had better be ready to call that steer manure, because it is and they don't have to aim that manure only a gay Republicans.

[noiretextatique]

38. hey there, jack

foley has been trying to excuse his pedophilia by claiming he's gay, alcoholic, abused, etc., so i don't have any sympathy whatsoever for him. as for craig, how unfortunate for him that his party doesn't support gay rights...but then again, he knew that, didn't he? as for dimocrats, for once the strategy of doing nothing is likely the best one this time.

[chill_wind]

37. If anybody still fails to grasp the big picture

of what JR is talking about (conflating and muddying. (ie gays + pedophilia), as an example just delve a little more into recent RW activities surrounding the Strickland campaign. You won't learn nearly a half of what they are up to, checking only liberal blogs.

'Foley problem' surfaces for Ohio Democrats
Quote:
Scandal puts spotlight on gubernatorial candidate's vote on pedophilia

In the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, questions are circulating below the radar screen in Ohio about the past record of Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland on pedophilia.

(...)

Lots of backround on what they're trying to claim...

(...)
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=94087

Here's one of the blog epi-centers of the political activity

10/19 AM Strickland Scandal Update

Hannity gives the Strickland mess some huge exposure and the Ohio lefty blogs start to wake up from their slumber (...)

(snip)

10/19: new! Enquirer: Angry and emotional Strickland defends himself on the staffer, doesn’t talk about the 1999 vote. Oh and he’s not gay.

Today's WND Exclusive - Ted Strickland in Attorney's Sights
Scott Pullins, a Mount Vernon, Ohio, attorney, plans to file an Ohio Elections Commission complaint against Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rep. Ted Strickland, charging that Strickland has attempted to cover up a scandal involving his 1998 campaign manager whose 1994 convictions for sexual improprieties with minors have remained hidden until recently.

(snip)


http://www.pullinsreport.com/

Governor's race turns ugly
Blackwell campaign links Strickland to predators, party hints he's gay

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061018/NEWS01/610180374

Strickland is of course way ahead. Seems certain he will win. It also seems certain this campaign and its model of things to come will not end on election day. The RW are not the only ones good at conflating things. The MSM, when it finally catches up with this a little more, will be equally willing and masterful.

[noiretextatique]

39. the thing that stuck me most about all of that

the accusers are all rw lunatics. however i can see how that kind of conjecture and innuedo manufacturing could be damaging.

[chill_wind]

40. Not entirely RW. A Dem rival campaign had a hand in this.

His Dem opponant in the gubenatorial primary helped revive and plant questions about his vote on the "NAMBLA-backed" APA pedophilia study (as his opponants are linking it) and who knows possibly what else.

Below the radar, now they (Wingers and the Pullins camp) are now trying to get him disqualified by the Ohio BOE on residency matters, also digging into the financing of that Italy trip with his staffer. They've also dug up what they claim are the staffer police records, which are apparantly displayed at the Blackwell web site.

On top of that, they are circulating two fresh new rumors on the Pullins site tonight, one of them very damaging in its inuendo, while being very careful to allege they are unsubstantiated. Pullins is an attorney. That's some dangerous legal crap he is leaving himself open to.

Right now, there are about 30+ pages of local voter reaction to the Cinci article of this morning which didn't include these two latest rumors(link I posted above)- 90% of it revulsion at the innuendo and smear tactics, with a lot of commenters revulsed and cynical about the whole scorched earth political process in general right now.

It's getting very ugly on the part of the GOP and could be a very long three weeks yet.

edit to add-- and Swiftboater Corsi sufaces once again and is helping this smear campaign at WND.