It's the Porn Star/Escort part that's revealing, not Sanchez's homosexuality.

[Bicoastal]

So far, the best comeback conservatives have on the Matt Sanchez expose is the following: "So what if he's gay? I thought liberals are supposed to be tolerant and accepting of gays! You're all just hypocrites!" If anyone would like to debate the issue with out using the Republicans' own talking points, here's my perspective on the whole matter.

As usual, they've got it all wrong. Although it is certainly ironic that Ann "Faggot isn't an offensive word" Coulter got his picture taken with this guy, I could care less that he's slept with men. In fact, I could care less that that his past career reads like the very antithesis of the "A Return to Values" platform that Republicans are always espousing. Those might be be talking points within the conservative movement itself, but as a liberal, it doesn't really disturb me. What's disturbing is that this guy has been on one talk show after another, claiming that left-wing protesters abused and spit on him because he was a marine, and thus fanning the flames of the argument that liberals hate the troops. With no photographs, no first-hand media reports, and very few other sources to verify this occurrence, Sanchez has been lauded by Hannity and O'Reilly as a star witness on anti-military sentiment within the American left; he was at the CPAC to pick up an award for that very reason.

Now compare this with Sanchez's occupation a decade earlier: he had sex with strangers for money, on and off camera. Even if you argued that there was nothing morally wrong with such behaviour (and to be fair, he wasn't hurting anybody THEN), one has to admit that on at least one not-so-distant epoch in his life, Sanchez was willing to do pretty much anything for a buck. I've read a few interviews with porn stars, and they basically read like this: "I wanted nice things, and after scraping around for awhile, I stopped caring how I got them." Flash forward a few years, Sanchez AKA Rod Majors is doing the talk show circuit, claiming that liberals hate everyone in a uniform to right-wing pundits who've pretty much taken him at his word. Porn star/escorts have every right to try and succeed in other areas of the entertainment industry (and some, like Ron Jeremy and Traci Lords, have succeeded to some degree), but I draw the line at them using themselves (or letting themselves being used) as props within a political setting. After all, just because the muscle-bound hunk LOOKS good in a uniform doesn't mean we can trust everything that comes out of his mouth--and when the public becomes aware of a different name, a hidden past, and an alarming lack of scruples when it comes to making money and gaining exposure, there's no reason why they SHOULD believe his stories about rabid soldier-hating hippies within the liberal rank-and-file. Whatever the truth is, it doesn't say much for Sanchez--or for the conservatives who were eager to transform this former pornstar into a conservative superstar.

The bottom line: If Sanchez was so good at "faking it" in a previous life, who's to say he hasn't been doing the same thing all over again?

[krispos42]

1. Excellent post

The issue is not "What is the liberals problem with him being gay?", it is "What happened to the conservatives problem with him being gay?"!!!!!!

[Tin Man]

2. I'd say Rod Majors is emblematic of many Repukes in that... he'll do anything for money.

[blondeatlast]

3. Mr. Sanchez has far more problems with his past "performances" than any liberal I know does.

Mr. Sanchez--it's the HYPOCRISY, you idjit.

[Poiuyt]

4. Republicans have no problem with porn stars

Mary Carey has dined with the president

[Bicoastal]

6. And also appeared on Fox News several times...

...for no apparent reason. She's as dumb as a post.

It occurs to me that if it was discovered that, say, Cindy Sheehan had made blue movies in her past, every single thing she's said and done in the last 3 years would be discredited and excoriated by conservatives--Bill-o and Hannity would be on this story for weeks! But one of their own does it, and it's "well, let's not rush to judgement." The asshole himself used that phrase on Salon.com!

Alls I know is, for all their posturing, the score is still as follows:

Conservative rank and file: 2 highly-paid professional escorts
Liberal rank and file: 0

[Poiuyt]

9. 3 - Don't forget Jeff Gannon

[Bicoastal]

12. I actually was counting him and not Mary.

She's not a speaker at CPAC or a White House correspondent....yet.

[rocktivity]

5. It's Sanchez's HYPOCRISY that's revealing, not his homosexuality.

He had to conceal it to get into the military, which I think denegrates his service a lot more than anything someone could say about it. Indeed, if he was willing to live a lie of such gargantuan porportions, why should we believe that his tales of opression at Columbia are even true? Now he says he left the porn industry because it was too liberal, and is blaming other for "advertisements" that he himself put on the Internet!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Bicoastal]

8. You hear that argument for any gay Republican...

....this is a bit more insidious to me.

This guy has all the trappings of a professional con man. It's equally insulting to the soldiers he claims to speak for and those whom he speaks out against.

[rocktivity]

27. Speaking of which, what has Sanchez had to say

about what's going on in Walter Reed?

:headbang:
rocknation

[WinkyDink]

7. EXACTLY. Because it's a;ways "Liberals" who are blamed for dragging

down America.

How do these Republicans FIND all these gay prostitutes, anyway? ;)

[TNOE]

10. Its the fact that he's a Prostitute - Plain & Simple

He took money for sex and apparently he has no problem taking money from the RW to lie.

[deepraj]

11. Conclusion once again: Cons are Hypocrites

The bottom line boils down to the usual: Conservatives are hypocrites. Although some of the most outspoken critics of homosexuality and sexual obscenity reside in their party, so do the perpetrators of the same.

It seems to be that their wholesome 'family values' platform that they so adamantly espouse is crumbling before them as we move more and more into an equalizing society and more out of traditionalism.

[xchrom]

13. i don't care about rod majors at all -- except that

republicans and the religious right HATE gay people -- but seem to be able to find self loathing gay folk to use as it suits them.

there is a deeper topic here -- dealing with uber-masculinity, social conservatism -- and sex.

uber-masculine gay men seem to have something in common with all the pervs hiding in the religious right movement, why?

i mean i know -- but it's someting to think about.

[smoogatz]

14. I'm sorry, but the fact that he's a gay porn star/prostitute IS important:

I'd even say it's the crucial detail. Look at it this way: if suddenly it was revealed that Strom Thurmond had a child out of wedlock (he did), that would be one sort of scandal. There'd be a lot of nudge-nudge-wink-wink among his followers, and a lot of smirking about how "we didn't know old Strom had it in him." No big deal, no assumptions questioned, no hypocrisy-on-which-his-whole-career-is-based revealed. But, let's say Thurmond's out-of-wedlock child happens to be black (she is). Suddenly, it's a whole other issue--Thurmond was a dyed-in-the-wool segregationist, after all. Turns out, he apparently thought segregation was just a good idea for everyone but him. Now it's not just an issue of questionable morals and bad judgment--it throws Thurmond's racist past open to scrutiny in an entirely new light--and what we find there is complicated and a whole lot more interesting than if that crucial detail--his out-of-wedlock daughter's race--had been omitted somehow from the story. Same with the preacher guy, Haggard (especially if you've seen "Jesus Camp"). It's one thing if he's preaching against homosexuality on Sunday and doing crystal meth with a hooker the rest of the week--another thing entirely if the hooker turns out to be gay. It's not just hypocrisy--it's hypocrisy squared. Same thing with the Sanchez/Rod Majors story, too--once again people high up in the Republican party propaganda apparatus are promoting and consorting with gay prostitutes; meanwhile the Republican party continues to oppose GLBT equality, and continues to use gay marriage as a political cattle-prod with which to goose the passions of their bigoted fundie base. If he's just a porn star/prostitute, the Republicans get to go "nudge-nudge, wink-wink, heh-heh, did you see the SIZE of that thing?" If he's a GAY porn star/prostitute, watch the Republic blowhards scuttle for the baseboards like East Village roaches when somebody turns on the light. He can't really ever be one of THEM anymore, because they're the party that publicly hates everything about his sexual identity; they're the party that screams "faggot" at everyone that frightens them. It's hypocrisy squared. Plus, it's much funnier this way.

[Bicoastal]

15. Important, yes....

...but there are already plenty of gay Republicans on the political scene, and merely calling them hypocrites doesn't work very well, I find. You and I know it's true, but Republicans often use people like Mary Cheney to say, "see, some gays ARE conservatives, and they're perfectly happy this way." And honestly, I believe several of them are--perhaps even Sanchez, despite all the secrecy. I mean, it's not like the "Log Cabin Repuplicans" don't exist. They can point to people like Giuliani as examples of Republicans tolerant and comfortable with homosexuality, and by coincedence, guess who's the leading Republican in the polls?

Honestly, if Sanchez was merely gay, this would be more of an insular, personal issue. I feel that his former profession damages his credibility and that of his party to a much greater extent than his sexual orientation. And BTW, I disagree that the disclosure that he was a "straight* former porn star wouldn't raise hackles---it just wouldn't raise nearly as many as it does now.

PS: ixnay on the unnier-fay--I don't want this thread locked.

[smoogatz]

16. It's not the gay Republicans who are the principal hypocrites, IMO--

although they're certainly implicit, and suffering under a weird set of delusions about where their interests lie; it's the party apparatus that takes their money, claims to want their votes, and then uses them as public whipping boys when it comes time to g.o.t.v. It's Kkkarl's math, or a version of it: gay people make up maybe 10% of the electorate, evangelicals make up maybe 30%. If you're into fuck-the-ethics political hardball, it makes perfect sense to throw gay people under the bus and work the fundies into a foaming frenzy over gay marriage. I don't think Giuliani's going to win a lot of points in the evangelical churches for his stance on "tolerance"--if he wins the nom, he'll do it in spite of the party's hard right wing. Frankly, I don't see that happening. The DC moneyboys may like Rudy, but the fundies have already said "no thanks." And last I heard, the fundies still drive the Republican party, down where the rubber meets the road.

On edit: it IS pretty uckingfay unnyfay, though, you have to admit.

[freeplessinseattle]

17. sorry, I resent that

To stereotype sex workers as untrustworthy and "willing to do anything for a buck" is an incredibly ignorant and hateful statement.

wow, sometimes DU just blows my mind.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

19. When we lower ourselves like this, we look bad.

Whether it's stereotyping sex workers or GLBT people, we don't get anything good here and alienate people like you, who would otherwise be our allies.

[freeplessinseattle]

26. Thank you. A refreshing voice in this sanctimonious thread n/t

[Bicoastal]

20. Hateful?

How do you figure?

A) I understand people in poverty turning to prostitution as a last resort, but this guy went into pornography and was quite prolific. And porn stars--or sex workers, as you call them--DO have a lack of scruples. No one is forcing them to perform with a loaded gun to their head--not even Sanchez will say that. They do it for the money, and they'll readily admit that.

B) He is untrustworthy--he lied about himself again and again in the conservative media. If his past wasn't an issue, he would have brought it up--and he would have been in an infinitely better position for doing so.

Explain yourself please. I don't believe I stereotyped anyone--I'm citing a details from a specific case.

[freeplessinseattle]

25. Everyone works for money

you are assuming that he really didn't like what he was doing...or...what? that he was hurting someone?

Explain why sex workers have no scruples please bc they give pleasure people voluntarily for money. I guess I don't see what is so unethical about that. If they were doing it for free would you view them differently? Or do you just look down on all promiscuous people?

[smoogatz]

21. Um... isn't having sex with strangers for money kind of the definition

of "willing to do anything for a buck?"

[freeplessinseattle]

23. dupe, oops n/t

[freeplessinseattle]

24. sure, if you consider sex unnatural n/t

[smoogatz]

29. Of course sex is "natural."

It's also potentially the most intimate thing you can do with another person. I think having sex with strangers for money alters the dynamic away from intimacy (obviously) and toward a coercive power differential that I would find degrading, whichever end of the transaction I was on. There's not much romance in a $10 blowjob. Call me old fashioned.

On edit: of course, what I find degrading, others may find entirely neutral, or even a turn-on. As a left-libertarian, I can't think of a single good reason that prostitution should be illegal, to the extent that it's non-coercive.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

18. DIscussing him and Jeff Gannon may be amusing but is a waste of time

The hardcore, fundy Christian base of the publicans will accept any salvation story they are told by O'Lielly, Rush or whoever is lying to them at the time.

If Sanchez is painted as "born again" and "cured", his sexuality will have no traction with them.

The money republicans don't care about gayness one way or the other, except as a campaign issue.

The independents aren't very interested either.

So we gain nothing by getting in the mud on this issue. In fact, we lose credibility, because we're supposed to be discussing the real issues, not using the "politcs of personal destruction.' We waste our time and look bad in the process.

If you're seeking to discredit this man, pointing out his "past sins" won't help. Being "born again" trumps almost anything with the fundies.

[w4rma]

22. How did all of these gay prostitutes because so powerful within the Republican Party?

What is going on with all of these Republican gay prostitutes?

Did they blackmail their way to these positions? Did they perform sexual favors for certain other high ranking Republicans in exchange for these 'promotions'?

[GreenZoneLT]

28. Yeah, come to think of it, how do we even know he's gay?

I mean, prostitutes do all KINDA stuff that has nothing to do with their personal sexual proclivities, and there are probably a lot of gigs for guys who will do gay porn. As they say, work is work.

I'm not sure where "ex-man-boinker" puts you as far as the Marine Corps goes. Supposedly, they're only opposed to homosexual conduct once you swear the oath, not homosexual identity, but that's a crock in terms of how they actually deal with the issue.

I do think the guy's pretty much a proven poser and fraud, regardless. If he said it was sunny outside, I'd definitely pack an umbrella.