No, I mean why is his sexuality something that you make sure to mention?
I assume you personally don’t care about his being gay, but you are trying to elicit a response from other people by harping on it. And you are disappointed because it isn’t working.
I wonder what this kind of behavior is called…
Maybe some Dems and liberals aren’t complete hypocrites. I’d like to think so, at least.
Regards,
Shodan
The behavior you are engaging in is called “being disingenuous.” I don’t think there’s anything particularly difficult or obtuse about my arguments, but you just don’t seem to be following them.
The shoe is on the other foot in this instance, my friend. The hue and cry about Clinton’s blowjob was HUGE compared to the Jeff Gannon thing. Why weren’t the social conservatives up in arms about that (other than the extremely partisan ones). Are there few or no non-partisan social conservatives? Or what?
That’s fair enough, but I’m surprised that we don’t have more “loose cannon” social conservatives … especially from the religious right … getting worked up over Gannon. I’ve seen little or none of that. I honestly didn’t think the religous right was all that controllable on hot button issues.
No, I am following them just fine. You would like the Right to do what you are doing - condemn Gannon for his sexuality. Nobody seems to care, other than you. So you are repeatedly mentioning his sexuality in order to trigger a response.
The short answer is “your failure to understand the nature of the Clinton scandals means that you also fail to understand the nature of this scandal.” To wit:[ul][li]Clinton was President []Clinton was directly involved in fomenting and attempting to cover up his scandals[]Clinton was not impeached for a blowjob, contrary to the constant harping of the revisionists; he was impeached for lying under oath. []Clinton lied a great deal. Therefore a scandal involving lying under oath resonated in a way that, for instance, Travelgate and the pardons did not.[]There was unequivocal evidence that Clinton made false statements about the case. He was lying when he said “Ah did not have sex with that woman”, and the blue dress proved that beyond any shadow of a doubt.[/ul]None of the above apply to the “scandal” which you are attempting to play up. [ul][]Gannon is not President; he is some guy at a press conference. []There is no evidence of involvement by Bush in anything relating to this. []There is no indication that Bush has any connection with male prostitution or any of the other sleaze factors you are attempting to highlight - therefore no resonance.[]As Bricker and others keep pointing out, there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Bush.[/ul]As you admit, you have no clue as to why this is garnering none of the bad publicity you want for the Bush administration. This is because you cannot, or do not choose, to understand the nature of what is going on, particularly with social conservatives. [/li]
Bring out a pair of Gannon’s undershorts with Bush’s semen on them, and I will register my distaste for his behavior. Keep screaming “but Gannon is a man-whore! Hate him for me!” and the only distaste I will register is for your behavior.
Blaming the other side because it does not engage in simplistic, knee-jerk hatred is a pretty dumb way to try to foment a scandal. It isn’t working. Ask yourself why.
Or ask the rest of us, and, when we answer, instantly dismiss the answers in favor of your own silly prejudices. It’s all the same to me.
Regards,
Shodan
It was just a week or so ago that one of the usual religious-right pundits waxed paranoid about how gays are “infiltrating” Washington to advance their agenda of destroying our blah-blah-blah. Jeff Gannon infiltrating the White House fits almost too well. Just imagine how the RR would have reacted if it had been the Clinton White House. But as batshit insane the RR is in standing up for the “principle” of opposing homosexuality, the one thing that will shut them up about it is if it involves the Bush White House.
That’s part of it. The other part is, how could the White House have given pass after pass after pass to a political hack with such a questionable background in these times of hightened security?
Now the president may have thought Katrina would miss New Orleans, but do you honestly think he’s so clueless as to not know which “reporter” will throw him a lifeline?
This is your definition of a scandal equivalent to being caught lying under oath - calling on a person at a press conference who is not trying to embarass you? This is unethical or illegal - how exactly?
Or are you saying that other Presidents should be hounded out of office for granting interviews from reporters who will fawn all over them?
Regards,
Shodan
True, and I certainly wouldn’t say that every social conservative in the country is kept on a short leash by “the powers that be” in the GOP. But, as others have pointed out, Gannon was small fry. Do you think, for instance, that if Santorum found to be gay that his social conservative base would stick by him? Unlikely. They wouldn’t necessarily flock to the other political party, but they’d find another GOP guy w/o the baggage. And they can dump him w/o denouncing him and making a big deal out it, as they would do to a Democrat.
They only care about homos when they can make political hay over it. Santorum works closely with Robert L. Traynham, his communications director, who is gay. Yet when it fits his needs, Santorum chides gay folks as diseased. When Cheney wants everyone to vote for him he claims that gay people deserve to be treated fairly and it’s a state decision whether to allow marriage rights. Yet when the chips are down he “supports the president” when crusading for a Constitutional Amendment. When the Governator ran for office, he claimed to be inclusive. Yet when he feels the need to shore up his conservative base, out comes the veto. When Meehan’s bill to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is introduced, you don’t see Republicans lining to up co-sponsor. But they sure want the Log Cabin’s money.
But that’s not the same thing I was talking about. When has the GOP gone after a Democratic politician on the basis of his/her being gay? The press loves it when a poltician either outs himself or is outed, and a “scandal” ensues, but it’s the press driving that “scandal”, not the GOP spin machine. (And please don’t claim that the press **is **the GOP spin machine. If you think that, then then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.)
I think that the position of both sides have been mischaracterized here, so I’ll throw in my two cents, being as non-partisan as I can for the time being.
(1) Nobody claims that being a homosexual porn star is incompatible with being a reporter - specifically, neither the (majority of) Democrats nor the (majority of) Republicans argue that this man should have been thrown out simply because he ran a gay porn site.
(2) Everybody agrees that there are strongly pro-Democrat and strongly pro-Republican reporters, and that their affiliations are well-known by the White House staff. Furthermore, nobody really faults the other side for picking a nice softball question now and then - I’m sure there are examples on both sides.
Most Democrats (of which I am one) have a problem not with (1) or (2), but with the fact that he used a fake name to get into the White House. This leads to two potential criticisms of the White House, only one of which is true but both of which are embarrassing:
(a) The White House knew exactly who he was and allowed someone who was an obvious shill, working for an unknown newspaper, to have access to political information at the highest level. This undermines journalistic integrity.
(b) The White House had no clue who he really was, and allowed someone with a fake identity and a badge to have access to White House press conferences. This undermines national security.
Most Republicans (in my completely unbiased opinion of course 
) don’t care about journalistic integrity, so, of course, they’ll opt for (a), cite (1) and (2), and consider the case closed.
James Hormel?
Not familiar with him Got an unbiased source that explains the situation.
yerba buena: excellent post. you need to pay up and join this message board!! better still, if you’re from the SF area (just a guess based on your username)
OK, now I rememeber that incident. But that wasn’t really what I was talking about, so perhaps I misread **Homebrews **post. It’s no surprise that advocacy groups make a stink only about guys on the other side of the aisle. I was speaking of the political parties themselves. Again, maybe that wasn’t what **Homebrew **meant.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
But that’s not the same thing I was talking about. When has the GOP gone after a Democratic politician on the basis of his/her being gay? QUOTE]
How about the time that Dick Armey (R - Dick) “accidentally” referred to Barney Frank as “Barney Fag”?
Eh. Armey is a douche, but that was obviously a slip of the tongue, and he apologized for it almost immediatly, IIRC. Even if it was Freudian evidence of Armey’s bigotry, he’s still just one politician, not the entire GOP. It was hardly a concerted party effort to smear a political opponent because of his sexuality, which is what John Mace was talking about.
Shodan: You appear to have conflated homosexuality with prostitution. A simple mistake, really, when viewed from a certain point of view.
I didn’t quite catch where he was doing that in his replies. He seemed to be replying point for point to Evil Captor’s arguments. Where specifically did he conflate these issues?
No, you have confused me with Evil Captor. Read the OP.
Regards,
Shodan