Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Outing closeted Republicans - how do you feel about this

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 10:50 AM
Original message
Poll question: Outing closeted Republicans - how do you feel about this
Personally, I'm on board with outing them all because perhaps once we get them out of the closet we can expose the Republican hate machine of "Do as we say, not as we do" ideology. Being gay, lesbian, bi, transgender is a horrible thing in the eyes of the Republican Party UNLESS you happen to support the core cause of helping the Republican Party gain more power, money and world domination (and then just keep it in the closet).

So I say out them all, but then again I'm a straight gal and never had to go through some heart-wenching, coming-out experience; which I know for some has been a major and very personal ordeal. And even more who haven't come out because of personal reasons that perhaps I'm being a bit too callous to understand. Mind you, I'm talking those of you here joining in the poll NOT closeted republicans who promote hate.

So take the survey, I'm interested in seeing how folks feel about this and post any feedback you have about the issue.

So the question at hand is this:

Should we out closeted Republicans, especially those who promote homophobic legislations and attitude despite the fact that they are closeted.

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. Normally, I don't believe in outing people however...
if someone is actively working to promote an anti-gay agenda, even though they're gay, out the motherfucker. I'm fine with outing all hypocrites in our government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpreadItAround Donating Member (265 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I totally agree with you
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. I agree with you 110%
I think the fact that they are having the best of both worlds - living the way they choose without public judgement and yet being able to judge those who the same exact type of people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I agree as to those that are "actively" working
but that doesn't include every staffer. Just becuase someone works for a member of congress who supports the ban on gay marriage doesn't mean that person is actively working for the passage of that amendment, just as not every staffer who works for a pro-choice Democrat is necessarily pro-choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
20. I don't know - I have doubts about that
Only because if I was devoutly pro-choice or a homosexual, I know that for the life of me I could NOT work for someone who I felt goes against everything that I believe in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. understood, but there are gay repub staffers that aren't closeted
Edited on Wed Oct-11-06 12:05 PM by onenote
who work for repubs. So what is the justification for outing a closeted staffer? Hypocrisy? I'd hate to go down the road where every staffer is expected to agree with every position that their bosses take.

And what about gay staffers for Democrats that agree with repubs that marriage should be between a man and woman but believe it should be left to states to decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. That is exactly my stance...
Out any gay/lesbian person -- Dem or GOP -- who actively advocates against gay/lesbian civil rights.

Their hypocrisy must be exposed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. Well said!
Edited on Wed Oct-11-06 12:25 PM by quantessd
I feel that a-holes like them are fair game.
I don't appreciate their behavior (being outwardly anti-gay, that is).
I'm a heterosexual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. out
I agree with you 69%!!! hahah

No I do agree with that, they are hippokrits when it comes to this subject, they cant
have it 'both' ways

As peoples personal lives are their own, and normally I would not agree, but this is
a special circumstance and must be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. I say out them, but not because of hypocricy
Edited on Wed Oct-11-06 10:54 AM by TechBear_Seattle
I say it should be done because they are a genuine threat to America and democracy. A person can not be blackmailed for what s/he openly is; all closeted politicians, regardless of party, are at the mercy of special interests and party hacks who learn of their secret. How they vote on gay issues is secondary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. What TechBear_Seattle Said! Blackmail is a
genuine threat to America. I feel the same way about anyone who has a secret, to easy to blackmail. If 'public servants' want privacy they are in the wrong line of work, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. What about adulterers, those with drinking problems etc etc.
Lots of things that can be a basis for blackmail. Is there a line?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Good question
Because if the line is homosexuality . . . well that'd be questionable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Should there not be a line?
Over the last few decades, it has become an established matter of common law that public figures lead public lives. Politicians, by the very nature of their jobs, are public figures. Unlike other public figures, politicians are also have considerable access to sensitive, even secret, business and security information. Additionally, politicians are the ones who define the law: their duty is to create and refine the rules and regulations that guide a civilized society and determine what penalties shall (or shall not) be placed on those who break those rules and regulations.

I assert that the amount of power an elected politician has, combined with the principle of "public figure means public life," REQUIRES that we hold politicians to a level of openess not required of less public people and private citizens. If Brad Pitt has a *snort* problem and gets blackmailed because of it, he isn't going to end up installing a Middle Eastern dictator as a result. If Oprah is revealed to have a thing for underaged boys and gets blackmailed because of it, she isn't going to slash Social Security for millions of Americans just so a few dozen people can get even richer.

So I ask you back: Should there not be a line? And if you agree that a line is necessary, where would you draw it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. I don't think the fear of blackmail is a justification -- that's my line
Edited on Wed Oct-11-06 12:27 PM by onenote
Everyone has secrets. Are they deep enough to submit to blackmail in order to maintain them? No one can know that in advance about another person. Some married staffer with a security clearance who is having an affair with the office secretary might be willing to turn on his country to avoid being outed and have his marriage fall apart. ANother staffer in the same situation might refuse to be blackmailed and deal with the issue if it becomes public. Same goes for being gay, drinking, etc etc. etc.

One could argue that someone with a drinking problem should be outed so that they can get help before they do something like drive their car into a bus stop full of kids. But I don't see where being gay or having a mistress or having had an abortion or any of the zillion other things some people might want to keep secret should be fair game because of the possibility that they could become fodder for blackmail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. The Snort Comparison doesn't work
Any actor or congressman who breaks the law has to expect to bear the consequences of breaking that law. It's taken as read that exposing someone who breaks the law, wether it's a drug law or a statutory rape law, should be exposed and punished for his or her crime. On the same note, however, we can't expect politicians to admit to breaking the lw before sitting down in congress.

What you are talking about doing is requiring people to reveal behaivor that is legal, but that some people might find offensive. I agree that it would be best if they did - but forcing them too strikes me as an infringement on their rights as citizens.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #31
59. Public servants should expect to have their
private lives be revealed. I care less which secret is revealed (ie: drinking, prostitution, drugs, infidelity, etc). It is the fact that secrets make you susceptible to blackmail which can have you doing very bad things in order to keep your secret. Just choose a private sector career if you have things in your past or present that you have to keep secret.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. I guess the innocent have nothing to fear from this policy
Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Outing makes me very uncomfortable but,
when I step back, being suseptible to blackmail puts all American citizens in danger. Therefore, I have to side with the greater good. That does not make me any less uncomfortable with the outing of anyone from their secrets. Public service=public life, its the only commom sense way that I can see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. That might be going a bit far
I think the moral thing for such politicians to do is to come out of the closet, but forcing them out is questionable.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. I disagree, for reasons in post #22
They chose to live in a fishbowl; they have to live with everyone peering in. They have the power to write laws; they have to live with citizen interest in minimizing subversion of the legislative process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. When a politician takes a stance on an issue
it is fair to examine whether that politician has a dog in the race.
Take our current pro-war administration. They're draft dodgers and chicken hawks, which defintely casts a shadow on their policies. Hypocrisy in political figures is definitely relevant, and should definitely be exposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. That's not what I was responding too
I was responding to the suggestion that every gay should be outed because if not they are vulnerable to blackmail attempts. Whether they tolerate anti-gay sentiment or if they are the most pro-gay congress critter around.

Bryant

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
40. Isn't that the same argument
that's used to keep gays out of the military?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #40
50. Nope
It is similar to the argument once used to keep gay people out of government service (FBI, diplomatic corps, etc.) The sole reason why gay people are not allowed to serve openly and honorably is the same reason why the US military was segregated for so long: an "ick" factor firmly rooted in narrow-minded bigotry.

As a gay person with political aspirations of his own, I would never say that gay people should not run for office, get elected and be allowed to remain. I am saying that if a politician is out and has no blackmailable secrets, s/he is far more difficult to blackmail, which goes a long way in securing democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
4. Letting them stay CLOSETTED is hypocrisy.
Like letting a politician talk about their deep love for conservation, then giving them a pass on their ATV off road trip and fundraising endangered species cookout in the heart of Yellowstone.

Pass the barbequed Grizz, wouldja?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. mmmmm barbequed Grizz
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. My fave...next to French Fried SUV owners
He he he.

Now take a joke....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. I don't like that they get a free pass...
Women and member of racial/ethnic minorities who are republicans cannot hide who and what they are...and they rightly get a ration of shit from other members of their group for being traitors to the cause. Gay republicans shouldn't get to avoid the consequences of their hypocrisy just because they can hide what they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TygrBright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
6. It may or may not be our "business"...
...but it's tacky in the extreme, and the end does NOT justify the means. Besides, the GOPpies are sliding down the slope to a full-dress witch-hunt and purge as it is, let's not get in the way of the camera on them as the blood starts to flow.

sanctimoniously,
Bright
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
7. The only reason they are in the closet is because of the republican party
Incredibly sad irony. Because of the blatant, overt hate of the gop and their supporters, gay republicans feel the need to stay in seclusion.

Republicans and their religiously insane supporters are the only reason gays are still in the closet. IRONY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
10. not all repubs -- just the public figures
I don't have an objection to outing a gay repub (or gay democrat) that is an elected official or those, like Ken Mehlman, who while not elected are public spokesman for the repub party. However, staffers that do not present themselves to the public, whether they are staff counsel, secretaries, interns, mail room clerks -- I see no justification for outing them.

There are straight repubs and dems who opposed the amendment to ban gay marriage amendment and there are straight repubs and dems who supported it. (Obviously a lot more Democrats opposed than supported and vice versa). Consequently, I don't see where one's sexual orientation is relevant to a discussion of one's position on the issue. (And if a closeted gay repub like Foley opposed the gay marriage amendment, where is the hypocrisy?). More to the point, its naieve to think that staffers and employees of members of COngress all agree with and support every position taken by their bosses. Its not true for Democrats and its not true for repubs.

Ultimately, maybe my perspective on this is skewed because I work in DC and have friends and colleagues who are both sides of the aisle, including gay and straight friends on both sides of the aisle. These are not public figures -- they don't appear before the public, they don't publicize the fact that they are straight or gay, married or single, Jewish, Christian, atheistic or agnostic. There lives are not the public's business any more than anyone else's. There is something about outing private individuals -- for implying that there sexual orientation is relevant to the way they do their jobs -- that is offensive. What next? Should we publish lists of all the Jews who work on Capitial Hill so we can see which one's work for repub members who talk of the US as a "Christian nation"? Should we get the NRA membership list and publish the name of any staffer who belongs to the NRA but works for a Democrat? I'm troubled by where it all ends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
33. The short answers.
However, staffers that do not present themselves to the public, whether they are staff counsel, secretaries, interns, mail room clerks -- I see no justification for outing them.
You're not gay, are you?

Consequently, I don't see where one's sexual orientation is relevant to a discussion of one's position on the issue. (And if a closeted gay repub like Foley opposed the gay marriage amendment, where is the hypocrisy?).
For Republicans like Foley -- and Kolbe, and McCrery, who also voted in favor of DoMA -- it's a matter of "I got mine, so screw the rest of you."

These are men who trample my rights for the sake of their own fat pocketbooks -- while operating under the delusion that they are entitled not merely to "have the best of both worlds," but entitled to take advantage of both worlds. They take advantage of other LGBT Americans in the most obvious way, and they take advantage of their own socially conservative base. They are doing no favors for either side, and are in fact hurting both gay people and socially conservative Republicans. They're lying to both sides, in order to get what they can from each.

You really don't see the hypocrisy in that?

More to the point, its naieve to think that staffers and employees of members of COngress all agree with and support every position taken by their bosses. Its not true for Democrats and its not true for repubs.
When I worked for a major medical manufacturing company, I did not design our ultrasound machines, nor did I assemble them. Yet, even as just another I.T. geek, I felt, as did the vast majority of employees, right down to the cafeteria workers, that we were all working for a higher good. I shared equal responsibility for making the best ultrasound devices in the world, and, consequently, for saving many lives.

I didn't have to agree with and support every position taken by my employer -- and many times, I didn't. But anyone who didn't agree with and support the mission of the company didn't belong there. And anyone who thinks s/he can work for a Republican without actively contributing to the Republican mission is in denial.

Do you understand this?

There lives are not the public's business any more than anyone else's.
I'll agree with that the day they stop making my life the public's business. Until they stop actively contributing to making my personal life the subject of public debate, and stop attempting to legislate me back into the closet (or worse), then all bets are off.

That's not revenge on my part; for me, it is survival.

There is something about outing private individuals -- for implying that there sexual orientation is relevant to the way they do their jobs -- that is offensive.
No one is even remotely suggesting that sexual affectation has anything to do with the way one does one's job. Do you honestly believe anyone is suggesting that? If so, I'd like to see examples, so I can jump down some throats.

Maybe that's just the way you perceive it; I certainly don't, and I am extremely attuned to that sort of thing.

What next? Should we publish lists of all the Jews who work on Capitial Hill so we can see which one's work for repub members who talk of the US as a "Christian nation"? Should we get the NRA membership list and publish the name of any staffer who belongs to the NRA but works for a Democrat? I'm troubled by where it all ends.
False comparisons, both. If there is a Republican movement to legally deny American Jews equal housing, employment, and/or marriage rights, I'm not aware of it -- and if there were, I would happily out "closeted Jews" working toward their own demise. That would, however, be rather difficult, as 1) there is no such movement, and 2) you'd be hard-pressed to prove to me the existence of such "closeted Jews."

As for the second example, what makes you think NRA membership and Democratic Party membership are mutually exclusive? (Stupid, perhaps, now that the NRA has ceased to be simply a Second Amendment lobby and has morphed into something unrecognizable in my lifetime, but that's the beside the point.)

Besides, NRA membership is a choice. (Being a practicing Jew is too, for that matter; anyone can be born Jewish, and remain culturally Jewish, but as far as religion goes, you always have the choice to convert to something else.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
17. Nothing is excessive
when done to a repuke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
18. Only if they are actively participating in pushing an anti-gay agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
27. "Out" the hypocritical lying bastards, who set agenda against gay people
Edited on Wed Oct-11-06 12:57 PM by GreenTea
that is ugly, hurtful and wrong...as they hide and do it simply for money & power sick fucks!

These are the worst kind of non scrupled people there are...and of course they are used and controlled, willingly, by the wicked evil Bushco fascist!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
29. The first option.
Let's say that...oh, I don't know....Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is gay. Just for the sake of this thread.

Let's say that closeted gay Senator Graham (again, just for the sake of argument) votes for the Marriage Protection Amendment. Let's say that a piece of legislation that has come up before in Congress...the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (or ENDA) comes up again for a vote and Senator Graham votes against it.

My take is that when closeted Senator Graham votes against MY interest as a gay American (such as the right for legal recognition of marriage), then Senator Graham loses his privacy as a closeted gay man.

That's it, pure and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
War Pigs Donating Member (176 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
30. Outing of hypocrites is always fashionable IMHO.
:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
34. Pretty low
I can see the argument for an elected politician, but not for some unelected staff person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Not even political appointees who work on policy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Nope
We've got to draw the line somewhere. By policy, do you mean anti-gay policy, education policy, health care? Secretaries & assistants can work on policy matters as well, does that mean they should also be outed? Congressional staff are not public figures, and should not have the media spotlight turned on them. I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "political appointees" - that usually refers to high-level positions within the Executive Branch. A Congressman doesn't "appoint" his staff, he just hires them. They're employees, & shouldn't be subject to public scrutiny because of their boss's political policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. So Rove wouldn't be fair game?
O-tay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. I didn't say that.
You didn't seem to understand my point at all. Rove IS a "political appointee," a high-level public figure in the Executive Branch. He is not some anonymous Congressional staffperson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Well now you're making progress - you've recognized that
there are higher and lower levels of non-elected political figures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. It's not progress
It's my original point. That's why I was drawing the distinction between high-level Bush Admin. "political appointees" like Rove or Brown, and the low-level Congressional staff people who are being outed. Congressional staff are anonymous employees & should not be punished for their boss's policies. Executive branch "political appointees" are public figures who shape & determine their own political policies. I can see the argument for outing high-level politicians, but not for Congressional staff. So far, the people who have been outed are all Congressional staffpeople & I don't think that's right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. In your first post you said you could see an argument for an ELECTED
person, but not staff.

Now the boundary is being shifted to those who shape and determine policy.

I'd say that's progress. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. Then maybe
I wasn't clear. I was talking specifically about Congress - elected politicians yes, staff no. The same thing would go for the executive branch - high-level political appointees yes, typical bureaucrats, no. (hypothetically). It's just that Congressional staff are the ones being outed right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
novalib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. If You Work for Someone Who Is Busy Taking Away Rights
EXCUSE ME, but if someone is working for a person who is actively TRYING TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS of an ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE, then the worker, REGARDLESS OF HIS OR HER LEVEL, is HELPING the boss take away rights!!!!!

I SAY OUT --->ALL<--- of THEM!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. All the Halliburton employees, too?
All the people who work for lobbying organizations, all the Dems that voted for the Patriot Act, where does it stop? I'm not into witch hunts, in general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Simply reporting the truth about people isn't a witch hunt.
I'm just advocating the same sort of reporting on gays as there is on straights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. Are there bulletins
on the blogs about which Congressional staffpeople are straight? I must have missed that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Anyone in politics is subject to stories in the press - including
marital status and so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
novalib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. ACCOUNTABILITY!!!!
Its' about ACCOUNTABILITY!!!!!

No one elected Haliburton. No one elected lobbying organizations!

BUT WE DO ELECT THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!!

And THEY MUST be held ACCOUNTABLE!!!

I think you are using a "slippery slope" argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
novalib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. self-delete!
Edited on Wed Oct-11-06 02:17 PM by novalib
Oops!

I must have pushed the post button twice.

SORRY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
35. I'd out them all myself, if I could.
We are in a conflict. The only way to win is to beat the other side. This is a huge poitical weakness we ought to exploit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
36. I say out them for the hypocrisy and btw I'm bisexual. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
37. I say out 'em, they are hiding behind trying to take rights away
from people who are secure enough to stand proud about their sexuality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
novalib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
45. EVERY.SINGLE.ONE.------>OUT NOW!
I say OUT EVERY SINGLE GODDAM ONE OF THEM NOW!!!

They are NOTHING but lying, self-loathing, hypocritical, human rights-DENYING pieces of SCUM!!!!

They want to TAKE AWAY the rights of other gay people!!

So TAKE AWAY their dirty little secrets that they try so hard to cover up!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
48. REPUBLICAN Gay? OUT 'EM. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
57. There's no *fact* of the matter about it... Just a choice....
... about which of two orthogonal facets of a person one deems most important:

Insofar as a person republican, one is inclined to spill their secrets - who are we to hold their secrets for them?

Insofar as a person is gay, one is inclined to keep their secret - who are we to divulge their personal info.

It becomes a personal choice about which is more important to *us* the secret divulger/keeper when those two *logical* people are the same *physical* person.

For myself, I'm happy to divulge. But I wouldn't argue with anyone who made the opposite choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
58. No. The idea is just as repugnant as "outing" Bill & Monica.
I'm a straight male and find the utter hypocrisy of the closeted Gays of either party repugnant. I also find it repugnant that they feel the need to be closeted.

People's private lives should be their own as long as they are breaking no laws. Even the lives of politicians.

My sister-in-law has remained in the closet for most of her 70+ years. I have gay friends of both sexes who remain in the closet for their own reasons and I respect their decision to do so.

I'll leave it to the "journalists" and Republicans to search for stains on people's clothing.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faux pas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
61. Kicking and agreeing wholeheartedly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 23rd 2014, 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC