When cornered and asked about persistent rumors that he is gay, Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlmansaid "[You] have asked a question people shouldn't have to answer."
Mehlman is right. It shouldn't matter if he is gay. His performance should be judged solely on its merits and not his sexual orientation, skin color or religious beliefs. I believe in the Barney Frankrule that holds the only time when it is appropriate to out someone is when that person is hurting gay people. Say, like heading a national political party that routinely rallies right wingers to bash gay and lesbians, for example.
As a liberal, I'm glad to know that the Republicans might have become so open-minded and progressive as to allow someone who might be gay the role of national director. Even if it is an imperfect "don't ask, don't tell" deal, it's a step in the right direction for the Republicans. If they want to walk even further on the wild side, the Republicans should be gracious enough to says thanks to Bill Clinton for their new policy on tolerance and acceptance.
Even former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga, acknowledged the power liberals now have over Republicans. Newt the hoot said that if Republican leadership had "overly aggressively reacted" to the actions of former Rep. Mark Foley back in 2005 then they would have "been accused of gay bashing." Times are hard when real men Republicans are in charge of the government and they can't even remove a predator of their own party out of trepidation that cream-puff liberals will call them gay bashers.
While it doesn't matter to me if Mehlman is gay, straight or mannequin, it matters passionately to the fervent evangelicals who faithfully elect Republicans. And you can be assured that the evangelicals are more than a little bit interested given that they believe the Republicans have not vigorously pursued an anti-gay legislative agenda. You can also safely assume that Mehlman saying that he shouldn't have to answer whether he is gay sounds to evangelical ears a whole lot like "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to intimidate me."
Mehlman's answer sounds straight out of Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Then again, the way House Speaker Dennis Hastert has handled the Foley fiasco so far, the Republicans might be using the (hopefully) former "don't ask, don't tell"practices of the Catholic church.
According to Maddy Sauer and Anna Schecter at ABC, five years ago the Republican a supervisor in the House Clerk's office was warning male pages to watch out for Foley.
During the same five years, the national GOP counted on anti-gay evangelical voters. "It has not escaped our notice that they waited until just a few months from the November elections to address our agenda," said Kenyn Cureton, a vice president for the Southern Baptist Convention. "Conservative Christians are somewhat disenchanted with Republicans," Cureton said.
Well disappointed should conservative Christians be. Back in the spring, House Majority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, told Hastert that there had been inappropriate "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page.
But wait. Back in 2005, Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., who oversees the page program, learned of Foley's emails and investigated. Shimkus warned Foley to leave the boy alone.
The boy's congressman, Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., learned of the situation and then discussed with Rep. Thomas Reynolds, head of the House Republican election effort. Then Reynolds told House Speaker Dennis Hastert this past spring.
During the same time period, one piece reported that a staffer said that it was well known in Washington that some members posture as more anti-gay than they really are. The staffer said that "while members may not have personal problems with having gay staff, they vote the way their constituents want them to." Even the religious right's darling, Senator Jim Inhofe, R.-Ok, has allegedly said that he would hire gays for his Washington staff but not at his district offices in Oklahoma.
Rep. Barney Frank, D- Ma., who has had his own gay sex scandal, said that "the Republican attitude is that they have now moved to the point where they accept the fact that you're gay as long as you act somewhat embarrassed about it."
Which brings us back to the original question: have the Republicans finally endorsed Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy at least for their elites? Maybe their policy on bedroom privacy is like their take on health care: good enough for Congressional nobility but too good for us commoners.
B. 1952, GA, USA. D. To Be Determined. Beloved husband, father, grandfather, lover, confidant and friend of many from bikers to Zen masters; American writer and speaker, known for his criticism of Mammon's unholy trinity of big business, big government and big religion; served the least of them professionally as psychologist and voluntarily as activist for decades; loved to shoot basketball, billiards and the bull; lived free, died game. (memorial sketch by davidhewsonart.com)
On 10-02-06, I sent an article for review entitled, "They just can't help themselves, can they?" This article was on the topic of the present "Foleygate" scandal. As of yet, I have not seen it published, nor have I received word that such is the case.
I was wondering why it is this article is still not listed, either in the main articles part of the site, or as a diary entry (something I think would be inappropriate, especially since I site sources and did much research in writing said article.
If it is simply a case that it got lost in the mail so to speak, I'll gladly resubmit it as I still have it in Word format on my machine. If that isn't the case, I'd like to know why it is this article is seemingly being held up while other articles on this same subject are appearing.
I believe my homosexuality gives me a unique perspective on this issue, and to withhold my article would do a disservice to those who might need to see the issue from my point of view.
I would appreciate some word on my article soon. I would like to think that my article isn't being withheld because of content, or perhaps because of my point of view on the issue. However, I am starting to get that feeling.
I realize you are busy, and it takes a significant effort to keep this site running. However, the fact that articles written after mine have surfaced here lets me know that what is going on is not a question of being overly busy.
Please let me know as soon as possible whether or not my article is to be included.
Thanks
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 at 2:18:09 PM
As am I. I intended to only send that message to Rob. I apologize once again for doing it in the first place. Additionally, I apologize to you directly as I thought I had unchecked the radio box so it wouldn't get posted under your article.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 4:10:58 AM
3 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
