I know the background. Like I said, I’m not comfortable with it.
The story to which you link implies that Senator Graham is gay on nothing more than
… allegations made on Twitter by gay adult-film star Sean Harding[.]
The story then goes on to say:
. . . (the hashtag, along with the abbreviated form “Lady G,” purportedly refers to Graham’s nickname among male sex workers).
This is unsourced repetition of malicious gossip from, well, who? This does not meet the standards of serious journalism, and I’m disappointed in the Post.
Would we accept that as the basis for a story in a national newspaper if the allegations were about someone on “our” side (whatever that means to you)?. I think (I hope) not.
The story goes on to repeatedly use coded language like “lifelong bachelorhood” and “confirmed bachelor.”
I think we should not do this. Not fuel a rumor mill, a gossip mill, designed to hurt a politician, no matter how objectionable we find that politician’s views and affiliates.
OK. Fair enough. What’s your basis for this judgment? Have you seen Senator Graham in a bathhouse? And, if so, are you willing to say so without the cover of anonymity?
Nope. But there’s a metric ton of moral culpability in being comfortably gay and actively working to advance the oppression of other, less fortunate gay people.
It’s not insulting, of course. But it would likely destroy him with his base.
Look, I despise Graham as a Senator. I didn’t love him before Trump, and then his craven and cowardly light-speed switch to Trumpism made me despise him even more.
That said, and as I said above, I hate rumor-mongering as a political tactic. It’s easy and cheap and sadly sometimes effective.
And maybe I’ve got a bit of sympathy (let’s assume that Sen. Graham is gay, just for the sake of argument) for a man who grew up and lived his whole life (I’m guessing Graham is in his mid-sixties) in a world where to be homosexual can never be admitted, can never be lived publicly. That’s gotta be hard.
If, if, if, if (and the allegation in the story posted above isn’t worth wiping my ass with) Sen. Graham is gay, and patronizes prostitutes, well, to me, that makes him an object of pity and sympathy. I don’t think that would make a gay man happier than to be able to live openly as who he is, and have real relationships that he has to hide.
All in all, I just don’t want to go down this road.
I think most of the people who think Graham is gay don’t care that he’s gay, don’t think it’s a problem that he’s gay, and that it’s just ridiculous that he’d allow himself to be blackmailed into supporting Trump over it.
That is admittedly assuming that Trump’s blackmail is about Graham being gay, and not something that’s actually blackmail-worthy. And it’s assuming that there is blackmail, but the alternative to blackmail is that Graham really is that craven. Any which way, it’s a sad, sad state of affairs.
To be sure, being born in 1955 and growing up gay was, no doubt, really, really awful. But any sympathy that might have engendered in me dried up and blew away when he started using homophobia for his own personal and political gain.
Yea, so odd that women would not want to put their name on a statement. What, do they imagine that people would verbally attack them, post their addresses online and otherwise harass them?
I’m sure this sort of thing would NEVER happen to them. I can’t imagine who would do this.
I don’t think anyone would threaten his employees for defending him. We just think the lack of any actual signatories on that statement makes it completely suspect. Was Epstein’s Mom not available to write Gaetz a note?
And as was stated earlier, how would women in his office KNOW for a fact the ages of the girls he was “dating”? Were they in charge of the ID checks on his sugar daddy dating app?
I wish I shared your optimism. The right has been aggressively courting the violent misogynist vote, but there are plenty of those assholes on the left as well, and it’s pretty well established that conservative women come in for plenty of violent hateful language online.
This, however, is totally true. If no woman in the office was willing to sign her name, it’s possible it’s because of threats, but unlikely, given how many women sign their names to stuff despite toxic online culture. It’s far likelier that Gaetz wrote the statement himself and put it out. Granted, that’d be super disrespectful to the women in his life, but, uh…
I can understand why his employees might not want to sign their names to a statement supporting him. It’s more the above - that the statement is ultimately meaningless - that really makes the whole thing suspect.
It’s right up there with Trump’s “Everything’s positive” doctor’s note.
As I understand it the “queer community” does not take kindly to outing or smearing people for being gay.
Yes, it would be a disgusting case of hypocrisy if he were caught having gay sex with prostitutes. I get that. But is it okay to smear somebody for being a bit effeminate, and (allegedly) the subject of gossip among gay prostitutes? I don’t think it’s right to do that, whether he’s gay or not. Of course he earned it and deserves it; that’s not up for debate. But we should be better than that.
To reiterate my broader point, it may be that the Republican conspiratorial cabal is like 1% international financial intrigue and espionage, and 90% sex peccadillos that most people would find boring and unremarkable, except for that particular politician’s district. I base this on the fact that what they keep getting busted for is being horndogs who pay for sex, or have some eccentric sexual habits that wouldn’t play well back home, and occasionally with underage teenagers.
So far it’s been 100% hetero sex (with some crimey and rapey twists), so maybe there’s no need to imagine anything more elaborate than that. Maybe we’ve been hearing hoofbeats and looking for zebras. Maybe.