I think the idea of exposing GOP hypocrisy by outing is a little naive...

[Maven]

The poll in this forum asking if it's OK to talk about "Jeff Gannon's" sexuality is what prompted me to say this.

Sure, DUers can see the overall trend of hypocrisy within the GOP that outing an anti-gay Republican merely exemplifies. But I think to Mr. and Mrs. Hateful Republican, the revelation that a GOP member is gay will just be written off as a "few bad eggs" situation ala Abu Ghraib, and not tied to the greater corruption and lack of integrity in the party leadership itself. Remember, most of these people are willfully ignorant. What do you think?

[Old and In the Way]

1. But the more bad eggs they run into, it adds up.

At some point, it dawns on them that all the hen lays are Ken Lays.

[Inland]

2. No, I think that the right wingers hate the idea of gays in their midst

Religious, that is. I think they are freaked by the concept of gays pretending to be normal, in their minds, walking among them. Pretending to be taxpaying, working Americans and not selfish hedonists, trying to blend in.

And they suspect that the worldly, secular conservatives know who is gay and----god forbid!----

**TOLERATE** the homosexuals.

Remember, the right wing christians have moved past demonizing gays to demonizing tolerance. The Cheneys only got away with a gay daughter by pretending to be deeply ashamed of her.

I think that outing gays divides the republican party, because the right wing christians want to know who has tolerated gays in their midst. They will want to know if Gannon got special treatment. They will want to know if somebody went to gay bars.

While I have some issues with outing people who lead private lives, which wouldn't include the commercial activity of prostitution, I know that it is the republicans who will freak.

[Maven]

4. Maybe this would be true, if progressives organized the right PR offensive

As it is, I'm not sure the whole *pattern* will get through to these people. That was my point: we on the left tend to think that other people follow the facts on their own and put them together appropriately, then scratch our heads later when others seem clueless. We MUST MUST MUST stop assuming that the public knows what we know or even has the intellectual curiosity to find out. Don't think like a newshound. Think, for a second, like an average schmo who only hears what he hears on MSNBC and has little or no historical memory. Now, what are we doing to make this story STICK for that person--how will we get our perception of the greater PATTERN across? Why has there been no ad campaign by our side that plays a little dirty and consolidates all these facts?

[BR_Parkway]

20. Here's the email I sent to everyone on my list, asking them to forward it

as much as they could:

You have to read this, it's too appropriate (can anyone say Karma?). And please pass it along to anyone and everyone - it's time this was bought out into the open.

After the disclosures that the Bush Admin has been paying "journalists" to promote their programs (and breaking a few laws along the way) there is one vital question that remains to be asked.

Why is the White House using a GAY PROSTITUTE to sell Americans on their programs and to retalitate against people who threaten to disclose information that could tarnish them?


1) How does a GAY PROSTITUTE (fake reporter) sit in White House press briefings most days over the past 2 years and NO ONE checks out his background? He's within 25 feet of the President of the US.

2) Whenever a reporter asked a question that the White House didn't want to get into, why is the GAY PROSTITUTE (fake reporter) the guy that they ask the next question of, knowing that he will give them a softball question to get things back on track

3) How does a GAY PROSTITUTE (fake reporter) get a White House press pass DAYS after starting work for a "news organization" that only set up shop 4 days before - specifically to put out the White House message, many times cutting and pasting directly from the press releases handed out.

4) How does a GAY PROSTITUTE (fake reporter) get a copy of a classified internal CIA memo, and then uses it to publish info that destroys the cover of a CIA operative, whose husband had just come back with a report that the talk of Saddam Hussien trying to buy material for a Nuclear Bomb was false, and making a fool of Dubya's push to war and State of the Union address.

5) How does a GAY PROSTITUTE (fake reporter) become one of the first in the White House press corp to break the story that Jamie Gorelick might have a conflict of interest in the 911 commission because of her earlier memo?

6) How does a GAY PROSTITUTE (fake reporter) become one of the first in the White House press corp to break the story that the memos about W being AWOL might have been forged (even though 3 independent witnesses verify that the real memos said the same thing)?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/

DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINKS IN THE ARTICLE UNLESS FULL MALE NUDITY DOES NOT BOTHER YOU - but the story is well worth looking at, and asking the questions above.

[Jawja]

3. No, the issue should

not be the outing of Gay Republicans. We all know they exist, and that is fine.

The issue is the hypocrisy of the Republican Congress, the Right wing owned Big Media, and the "Religious" factions behind George W. Bush toward the current sleaze in the White House - per "Jeff Gannon."

We had Monica Lewinsky and the "character" of William Jefferson Clinton crammed down our throats (at the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars) by both the Republican Congress and Big Media. We heard sanctimonious rhetoric blaring from the mouths of Congressional Republicans as they went on and on and on about morality and character and "what do we tell our children."

The issue is not the sexuality of Republicans, but their blatant hypocrisy toward how they treated William Jefferson Clinton's White House and what appears to be going on in George W. Bush's White House.

How does a male prostitute with no background in journalism and no credentials land a daily press pass under a false name to throw soft ball questions at the President of the United States? How does he come to be CALLED UPON by so-called President of the United States in a press conference? What's the story here? It's not "Gannon's" sexuality. It's WHO in the White House authorized his clearance and WHY?

[noamnety]

5. It's important for another reason

That's the part that took him down. If the story was that he was lobbying softball questions and his credentials were questionable, he'd still be working there. The credentials SHOULD have been the part that took him out, in an ideal world, sure. But with the WH and the media both complicit, the only thing that seems to work is humiating them.

I'd like to see Bush removed from office, but unless we dismantle the support system, they can just replace him with another neocon nutjob and everything will be running smoothly.

So it's showing the trend of hypocrisy, it's possibly a move towards reforming the press credential process, it's an outing of the sham that is TALON news, and it's the removal of one of the regime. And it puts more focus on other reporters in the future that decide to ask "talking points" instead of serious questions.

[Psephos]

6. Focusing on "Gannon's" sex life is an invitation for blowback

Might as well go outside and flip off the gods. Sure as shit, there are just as many donks as there are repugs with sexual skeletons in the closet. Sex is not political. It's universal, and so are its many variations and departures from the norm, whatever that is.

"Gannon" can easily be shredded by focusing on his transgressions. Even a loser like him deserves privacy about his personal life.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone....

[Dookus]

7. an invitation for blowback?

they impeached our President because of a consensual blow job. Are we to allow OUR guys to get investigated, smeared and attacked non-stop while we turn the other cheek, as it were, when it comes to THEIR peccadilloes?

[Psephos]

8. So it was wrong to do it to Clinton, but now it's right?

Funny, but I have this thing called a "principle" that says it was wrong when they did it to Clinton, and it's still wrong now.

You either have principles and stick by them, or you don't. What the other guys are doing doesn't factor into the decision. I'll be goddamned if I let repugs be the moral compass by which I chart my course.

Peace.

[Dookus]

9. sorry...

I just disagree. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight. If they're determined to use sex as a weapon, it would be stupid for us to play by different rules.

Furthermore, Bill Clinton did NOT run for election on a chastity platform, but Bush and has cronies DO run on an anti-gay platform. There's nothing wrong with exposing the hypocrisy.

[Psephos]

10. I have no problem whatsoever with exposing hypocrisy in politics

but I don't believe it extends to a person's private sexual life. That's just bad karma.

As far as the rules we play by: are we playing by their rules or ours? Because if it's theirs, then we'll be hypocrites if we complain about what they do when we are doing it ourselves. Can't have it both ways.

From my point of view, your argument sounds a lot like the argument used by both the Hatfields and the McCoys. After a while, no one even remembers what the feud is about. It just is.

But we can agree to disagree.

Peace.

[Dookus]

12. well

you MIGHT have a point if this whole current scandal was simply about someone being gay. It is not.

It is about a gay prostitute who received White House Press credentials under a false name, writing for a fake news organization.

If this was purely about Scott Maclellan being gay, for example, then the focus on his sexuality might well be out of place (although i still maintain that such hypocrisy is fair grounds for exposure). But this is about much more. It's about somebody involved in an ongoing criminal enterprise who has somehow managed to insinuate himself into the highest levels of the White House. It raises plenty of questions about how he was able to do so.

The day the Republicans call a cease-fire on using sex as a weapon, then we should agree. But until that day, it would be incredibly naive to play by a different set of rules than they do.

Edit; How can you say you're all for exposing hypocrisy in politics, but not if it involves someone's sex life? When they make MY sex life a political issue, then they're opening themselves up to having their hypocrisy exposed.

I think you lose your entitlement to a private sex life when you actively work to oppress others engaged in the same activity you yourself partake of.

[Psephos]

13. Ok, in the spirit of discussion....

"How can you say you're all for exposing hypocrisy in politics, but not if it involves someone's sex life?"

Easy. Political and public actions are fair game. Private sex lives are not. Are you *really* on the opposite of this argument? Yikes. What's next, should we get "Gannon" a pink triangle?

"I think you lose your entitlement to a private sex life when you actively work to oppress others engaged in the same activity you yourself partake of."

"Gannon" or whatever his name is today was not engaged in oppressing private sex lives, he was passing himself off as a journalist and scamming press credentials, with a goal of trying to lob softballs at *.

I never bought into the Christian notion of associative guilt through original sin, and I don't buy the political notion of guilt through nominal political affiliation. Each person should be judged on their own actions and merits. The opposite of that is called prejudice, which means pre-judgment. Don't you hate it when some know-nothing repug says something odious about "all liberals"? As if we're monolithic. Hah. In my world, liberals avoid prejudice. Prejudice seems more like something I'd expect from a conservative.

Look, hatred of political foes is easy; I have to hold my nose and check my reflexes to even make these arguments. But after observing the toxic state of politics in this country for the past 12 years, I am convinced that civility is more important for the survival of our culture than more nyaa-nyaa-nyaa invective. The right way to beat your political opponent is by attacking his/her ideas, not his/her private life. We can take "Gannon" apart and give * a whack at the same time without delighting in the naughty details of someone's private life. Unless you think paparazzi culture has a few moral lessons to teach us....

Did you see the movie Runaway Jury? Remember what the Dustin Hoffman character did at the end? He refused to play by "their" rules. He realized he wanted to sleep at night. Me too.

And btw, he won.

Peace

[Dookus]

14. No, Gannon

was propping up the Bush administration and had written in favor of Bush's policies against gays.

You'll just never convince me that we have to accept them attacking us without fighting back.

[Psephos]

15. We're in complete agreement that we must fight them

It's a good fight, one that needs our dedication and ingenuity.

I don't think the urge to out Gannon's private sex life is driven by honorable principles. Also, I've never much been swayed by hypocrisy police. I remember in grade school not liking those kinds of kids - the ones who were always sniffing around for something to "tell" on - and my tastes did not change much as I got older. Moral issues aside, hypocrisy cops are not effective politically. Often, they invite blowback (see my original post). They do not convert the unconverted. I'm only calling them as I see them.

The urge to out Gannon's private sex life is not driven by whatever it is he wrote. I just threw a couple of minutes at it in Google and found only a few comments. In one he talks about the * position on gay marriage. In another he says that because of Kerry's positions on gay matters, if Kerry were elected he might be called the first gay president, as Clinton was the first black president. Virtually all of his writings are on other issues. Standard-issue RW boilerplate, as far as I can see, and the man was not born with the scrivener's gifts.

The truth is no one gives a shit what he wrote. This whole thing turns on this weird dude getting caught in a credentials scam...and then the delicious fun of exposing his private life. I had enough of this kind of shit when it was Big Dog in the spotlight.

So, in summary, yes YES YES! we fight them. Tooth and fucking nail. The only question is do we use their tactics as a model of how to do it? Some people think you can't win unless you do. And others think just the opposite. For my part, I wish to avoid Pyrrhic victories. "In order to save the village we had to destroy it."

I've enjoyed discussing this with you.

Peace.

[queerart]

11. I'm With You!

Fight Like A Motherfucker....

These Folks Haunt The Sewers..... So A Person Has Only One Option Open To Them........

Fight On Their Turf, And By Their Terms.... It's The Only Solution!

[justin899]

17. Bullshit!

Furthermore, Bill Clinton did NOT run for election on a chastity platform

The SOB not only signed the most anti-gay bill in U.S. history (DOMA) into law, but also went on Christian radio stations bragging about "saving the institution of marriage" during his reelection campaign in 1996 (this while he was getting those consensual BJs you refer to while MARRIED to another woman).

You CAN'T BE MORE HYPOCRITICAL THAN THAT no matter how hard you try!

[davidinalameda]

24. don't try to introduce logic into this argument

it only confuses people

[jonnyblitz]

31. I remember when CLinton did that crap.

one of the reasons I DON'T LIKE HIM.

[Maven]

22. Exactly.

It's time to get real. We're working within a mass-mediated society where prurient politics sells. Sorry, that's just the way it is. And if we keep being nice guys, we'll keep LOSING.

As a gay man, I have no problem with Gannon's sexuality being exposed--only in light of the homophobia in his writing and his party.

That said, it's really not the most interesting angle of the story. The credentialing (i.e., installed shill) issue is.

[blogactive]

21. Clinton

It is different than Clinton.

Clinton did not try to pass a Constitutional amendment against men who get oral sex outside of marriage. If he proposed that, then exposing his HYPOCRISY would be appropriate.

When Ken Mehlman uses homophopbia to elect a president and then goes and sleeps with men...IT IS MUCCCCCCHHHHH Different.

[justin899]

19. "Our President"? NOT MINE!

"they impeached our President because of a consensual blow job"

That bigoted POS wasn't my president!

DADT, DOMA....that bigoted sob didn't represent me!

Then he went on to tell Howard Dean NOT to run for presdient due to his signing the partner law in VT and then tried to get Kerry to come out in FAVOR of every single damn one of the amendments this past election (which would have meant that he would have lost by 9 points rather than 3).

And people claim Republicans are self-loathing??

NO!

Clinton apologists are self-loathing!

[Dookus]

23. nice screed

but if you were a US citizen between 1993 and 2000, he was your president, like it or not.

And self-loathing? No. Some of us just understand politics a little better than others.

[jonnyblitz]

33. "some of us understand politics better than others"

yeah, that you fuck over a constituency for political gain and that some of that constituency 'accepts' this.

[jonnyblitz]

32. good luck with that sentiment on this board though i agree.

:thumbsup:

[necso]

16. Personally, I find "outing"

(in any form) to be extremely distasteful. Someone's personal life is his own business. And even if someone hasn't been exactly private (or even completely law-abiding -- in some blue-law kind of way) in his personal life, it is civilized to treat the issue with a certain forbearance and deference.

But we are locked in a death-match with the neocons (they, at least, aren't stopping until we -- and all their opponents -- are completely destroyed), and in these circumstances I am a firm believer in using whatever weapon comes to hand -- provided that it works.

As for those who support the neocon agenda as a matter of "faith" ("religious" or otherwise -- and there are plenty of the latter), there is little or nothing that is going to convince them of the error of their ways. "Faith" like theirs, which is not subject to re-examination (or even to initial examination), is always a form of willful blindness -- and willful ignorance. And "believers" of this sort will normally get exactly what they want to get out of almost anything. (Besides, who likes to admit that they have been wrong?) So as for "enlightening" them, this sort of thing is basically useless.

But perhaps there are other folks for whom an object lesson in hypocrisy is illuminating. -- And I'm not sure that it matters. But what does matter is, when we separate out one of these pricks from the pack, that we make a truly gory spectacle of the episode. At the very least, this will give the rest of them something to think about and remember -- a little taste in the back of their throats -- a little taste of what might await... And it sends the message that (at last) we are playing for keeps.

In terms of how the "broad masses" see it, well, we have little enough control over that. We can't expect favorable treatment, or even fair treatment, from the (mass) media. Hell, we can't even expect the media to take notice of "news", much less give it any play. And (more or less) forget the media talking about almost anything unflattering to the administration -- or to any of our other assorted overlords. The media might throw out some tidbits -- but they are not going to start doing their job.

And I am not sure that hypocrisy has much of a ring anymore. -- And I don't think that people spend a great deal of their time worrying over principle.

So if we are going to market anything to the people (this is what our opponents do -- market), then we need to hit the people in the gut-bucket -- and draw clear lines between ourselves and the neocons (effectively the republicans for the purposes of this reply) on issues that people see as effecting their daily lives. But I don't see how we are going to reach any understanding on these issues even among ourselves. And without this, how can we ever hope to thrust anything new or different on a largely unwilling Party? And without Party acceptance, how can we put together the kind of coordinated campaign that we need to?

[necso]

18. Let me go a little further.

Normally, "outing" someone would be contrary to my principles. But when the evil that one is facing is so great, and one's (effective) defeat looms in one's face, then you have to give the greater weight to responding effectively.

But that's me.

And I don't believe that we should make people do this sort of thing. Stopping short of "outing" is a reasonable and respectable line to draw.

[Boomer]

26. You're missing the mark

>> Someone's personal life is his own business. <<

Gannon's sexuality was not personal -- it was literally a public business endeavor.

[libnnc]

25. Gannon was not "outed"

Anyone who runs a *ahem* "cottage industry" out of their home and ADVERTISES said industry by posting a half naked picture of himself on the internet is already pretty much OUT.

No sir, Gannon was not outed.

[Boomer]

27. Agreed

The only "outing" involved would be the sexuality of someone who purchased Gannon's services, or received them in trade for some favor... like a press pass to the White House.

Oh, but wait! Trading sex for favors involving government institutions supported by taxpayer funds just might be considered a subject of public interest. Ya think?

[khashka]

28. You are exactly right

It won't make much of a difference to the believers. It won't make them question what they believe.

Outing someone is occassionally effective. If their hypocrisy is so dangerous to others and exposing that hypocrisy can stop them, well, do it. I detest that, I really do. When we out someone we're actually saying that they are gay and therefore bad people. Easy equation: Gay = BAAAADDD!

But it often ends up like me and my Dad. Over dinner one night he went on and on about how gay men really only want to rape children. When I pointed out that I'm gay and have never had any desire to have sex with children his response was that he didn't mean me just all other gay people. In other words, my friends, my lovers, etc. Because, you see, as I was "one of their own" the rules were different.

That same disconnect takes place in a larger context. Even when they hate homosexuals, if the homosexual is one of their own the rules change. Same thing works with prostitution or drug use or anything considered "bad".

So they will never realize what they are doing...

Khash.

(And I'm getting a bit POed by liberals making an issue of of his prostitution....)

[blogactive]

30. It is NOT the prostitution

Jeez...we don't care about the prostitution.

What we DO care about is this:
Did Jeff Gannon use information about the sexual proclivities of staff or elected officials to blackmail his way into the press pool? To get access to the President of the United States.

IF, as suggested by some, that Gannon slept with Scott McClellan or Ken Mehlman, this is not about prostitution, but about something much larger.

Plus...the RIGHT WING is anti-prostitution..throw their own crap back at them and folks...we don't have to play as hard as them...if we don't mind being the minority party.

You think they would let this go in a dem administration?

[xchrom]

29. we don't talk enough about ''willful ignorance'' and the right

it's been an incredible tool for them -- and they will continue to use it.
gannon/guckert gate -- to my mind won't slow them down at all -- to the degree that msm treats it lightly.

it's not that gannon/guckert was a rent boy -- although that's a wedge to open the door -- it's gannon/guckert, armstrong williams, etc that's the real story -- there seems to be no end to ''whores''.

how is it that the most complacent media journalist isn't feeling hell's very breath on the back of his/her neck with these revelations?

the right doesn't give a shit about gannon/guckert -- they will walk away from it -- the vast middle of the right in this country won't care either -- they hate the left with every fiber in their being.
and they DO NOT wish us peace.
what's gannon/guckert to them?
they believe in creationism more be cause we don't than they do.

the last part of my rant is more politically sensitive -- i don't trust straight people to hunt gay people for ANY reason.
they have lynched us, denied our humanity, castrated us, used prisons and asylums, torture and death, seperation from our families and anything else you can think of to keep us in the dark, underground places of humanity.

unless a case comes up to the ''roy cohn'' test for me -- i don't approve of outing.
and it's my gut that gannon/guckert does.
but like i say a certain amount of this has to reside in the hands of straight folks -- always uneasy for me -- and the real point is the number of paid ''whore journalists'' this admin has now clearly been using.

[Ian David]

34. We need to do more. We need to actively entrap them and document it

We need to actively seek gay and straight sexual encounters with conservative republican hypocrites and expose them.

If you are a good-looking guy or girl, find out where your local "family values" critters hang-out. Go there. Flirt with them. And get as much on tape as you feel comfortable with and can get away with legally.

If you can get a videotape of Santorum watching gay porn on your couch with his pants around his ankles, that's great.

If you can only get an audio tape of Orin Hatch having phone sex with you, that's good, too.

Find. Flirt. File.