Ariz. sheriff says he's gay after misconduct claims (resigned fromf Romney campaign, but running for

[No Elephants]

office himself)

February 19, 2012 5:24 AM


Ariz. sheriff says he's gay after misconduct claims


(AP) FLORENCE, Ariz. — A nationally known sheriff resigned from presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's Arizona committee and acknowledged he was gay amid allegations of misconduct made by a man with whom he previously had a relationship.

But Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu vowed Saturday to continue his bid for the GOP nomination in Arizona's rural 4th Congressional District race.

He denied claims he tried to threaten the man, a Mexican immigrant and a former campaign volunteer, with deportation if their past relationship was made public. The man's allegations were first published Friday in the Phoenix New Times, an alternative weekly magazine.

Babeu, a first-term sheriff who has gained widespread attention with his strong opposition to illegal immigration and smuggling, said the accusations were an attempt to hurt his political career.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57380977/ariz-sheri...

Allegedly, the attorney and campaign consultant for Babeau had falsely told the Mexican man, who also ran Babeau's campaign website and Twitter as a campaign volunteer, that his visa had expired. Allegedly, after their relationship ended in September, the Mexican man posted derogatory things about Babeau.

Babeau denies wrongdoing.

Photos of Babeau, who is not married, were on a gay dating website. (Not a very smart way to remain closeted, if that is your goal.)

[panader0]

1. This jerk appeared with McCain on his campaign ads

They ads showed the two walking next to the international border talking about illegals.
When viewing the ads. I kept wondering what a sheriff from Pinal county, which does NOT border Mexico was doing acting like some expert. He's toast, and not because he's gay, but because his stupid is showing.

[No Elephants]

4. I am not as optimistic as you. I think he is toast because it is a Republican primary.

[ChazII]

2. It will be interesting to see

what the citizens of AZ have to say over the next few days.

[Sapphocrat]

3. First draft of (part of) how I intend to write up this jerk in ConBab:

Memorable quote:

"Yesterday, a tabloid article made a number of false allegations about me. Only one was true: I’m gay. Today, I held a press conference to discuss this. I want to be judged on my service: 20 years in the military, two deployments – including one in Iraq, a police officer who has responded to thousands of calls for help, and a Sheriff who has cut response times while reducing my own budget. I hope you will stand with me as we talk about the issues that matter: securing our border and ending the record debt and deficit spending that is stalling our economy and bankrupting the country we all love." - SheriffPaul.com

How we read it:

"As much as I wish I could deny that I'm a big ol' self-loathing 'mo, there's just too much evidence, so I won't even try. Nevertheless, I'm gonna try to save face (and votes) with the vast majority of big ol' 'mo-hatin' Arizonans by reassuring y'all that I still hate Mexicans as much as you do (even if I'm yankin' their cranks at every opportunity), and that I'm still on active duty as Sheriif Joe Arpaio's slavish left testicle."

[No Elephants]

5. Why be so subtle? Just say how you feel.

(Geez, I can't even type rofl right!)

[Sapphocrat]

6. You're right. I should punch it up.

[No Elephants]

11. To be totally candid, I am conflicted about the general issue, quite apart

from the specifics of Mr. Babeau.

This clearly shows how being in the closet while running for office does not serve you or the people you hope to have as constituents. (I'm gleaning from the story that he dumped his lover as part of preparing for his campaign and tried to scare his lover, known as Jose, into silence with a deportation threat and Jose retaliated with a blackmail attempt.)

On the other hand, if you are Republican and out of the closet, you don't have much of a chance at the polls.

So, what does a Republican gay do? Sure, one answer is "Stop being a Republican." That assumes that your Republican beliefs (whatever the hell they are) are not deeply held.. Beyond that, are the chances of an out Democratic gay at the polls all that much better, even today?

If there is evidence that this guy mistreated gays, he deserves to be trashed, IMO--just as anyone who mistreats gays (or anyone) deserves to be trashed.

However, I sometimes wonder if "hypocrisy" may an excuse for some Democrats to trot out their "light in the loafers" repertoire?

On the other hand, by not coming out, especially if you are a Republican law enforcement officer, you help perpetuate the myth that homosexuals are some esoteric group that does not include your spouse, your parent, your sibling, your friends, etc. So, by coming out, you help all of society, as well as your own psyche.


I am not sure where my own conscience leads me when someone in politics is closeted. As I said, I'm conflicted.

[Sapphocrat]

12. Babeu crossed the line of "mistreating gays"...

...the moment he started donating money to rabidly anti-gay Arizona pols (particularly Tim Bee, who co-sponsored Prop 107, which banned same-sex marriage in the state).

Actually, what's funny is that it appears Babeu really wasn't hiding his homosexuality -- at least not when he was politicking in Massachusetts. As I understand it, his being gay was an open secret that few cared about one way or the other -- and the real reason he failed was not that he was gay, but far too conservative for the local GOP!

What I take from this is that being gay doesn't automatically shoot your chances to hell of being elected as a Republican -- what matters more is where you do it.

As far as hypocrisy goes... Putting aside the gay question for a moment: Do you think straight Republicans should be exposed when they engage in adulterous affairs? I do. I don't think there's any difference. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

And a Republican is a Republican is a Republican -- and every Republican is propping up a party that is not only 100% anti-gay (and anti-woman, and anti-poor, and anti-etc.), but altogether morally bankrupt and simply cancerous to what precious little is left that is good and decent in this country. Anyone whose "deeply held beliefs" are so truly in line with the GOP's that s/he cannot "stop being a Republican" (or is too selfish to care) deserves neither my respect nor consideration -- and is issuing a wide-open invitation to the most intense kind of scrutiny and criticism.

A couple of days ago, I wrote a piece about one Matthew Moynihan, a Tennessee Tea Party co-founder who was (so police say) busted in a prostitution sting in Nashville. I went after him, but not after one of the other two men arrested in the same sting: a fairly liberal Democrat named Brady Banks. The difference: Banks doesn't try to oppress other people with his own "deeply held beliefs." Moynihan does. End result for me: Banks is off-limits. Moynihan is fair game.

Babeu -- by furthering the Republican agenda (not to mention his actual financial contributions to directly destroying equal rights) -- is also fair game.

Whether Babeu turned out to be an anti-gay gay or just another straight "family values" Teabagger caught with a hooker in a motel room, the difference between what right-wingers say and what they do deserves attention. The goal? I hope that 1) not-so-rabid Republicans will reconsider their allegiance to a party so devoid of integrity, and 2) future Republican pols will think twice about throwing stones in glass houses.

Can you tell how strongly I feel about this?

FTR: I don't believe in outing everyone on the planet. Everyone should be out, but I'm not entirely unsympathetic to those who are scared to death for one reason or another to come out (ostracization, physical safety, etc.). But I do believe 100% in outing anyone who -- as I wrote re Moynihan -- "hates gays, oppresses women, and/or expresses an irrational fear/loathing of liberals, and then goes out and does something 180 degrees in opposition to the 'moral' standard he or she claims to own, and uses as a cudgel against everybody he or she doesn't like."

Moynihan, Babeu... straight, gay... doesn't matter. They're all cut from the same cloth.


P.S. Yes, I do think the Log Cabin Republicans, out or not, are a bunch of selfish bastards. And don't get me started on GOProud -- which I believe is either a front group or a bunch of self-haters badly in need of psychotherapy; compared to GOProud, the LCRs look practically humanitarian.

[No Elephants]

13. Okay, your response helped me clarify my thinking. Let me try again.

Again, this is not about Babeau. Politically, he will soon be irrelevant and I don't care about him as a private individual.

I think my conflict comes partly from the kind of posts I've seen at DU when a closeted homosexual has been outed, especially a Republican homosexual. Out come the kind of homosphobic remarks that would never be acceptable at DU under any other conditions. Or not even necessarily outed. (Think Lindsey Graham.)

When a Republican is outed for an extra marital affair, it's different, but also similar.

But, let's say a Republican man who has never claimed that Republicans own morality is outed for an extra marital affair. Does he deserve to be piled on more than a Democrat who is caught in an extra marital affair? I don't know, but that is one issue: No matter if an individual Republican has even personally joined in the "holier than thou" behavior or not, is it okay to label him or her a hypocrite, simply because she or she is a member of the holier than thou Party?

For example, is Cheney's daughter a hypocrite about homosexuality, simply because she is gay and Republican? I honestly don't know.

Ditto about Republicans of any gender or orientation who have extra marital affairs, but have never individually claimed to own God, religion or family. Are they hypocrites for committing adultery, or just garden variety adulterers?

But, here's the thing: as Democrats, we may or may not acknowledge that adultery, in and of itself is a bad thing. Ditto being a hypocrite is, in and of itself, a bad thing. We do not, however, say that being gay is, in and of itself, a bad thing.

We MIGHT pile on a Democratic male who has committed adultery for the adultery, for his behavior, not for having been born with a penis and not for hypocrisy--unless he himself had done a lot of preaching about faithfulness.

It would not be acceptable to diss all men or use anti-male cliches because this one had an adulterous affair. Yet, it seems acceptable to use homephobic language when piling on an inadvertently outed gay, especially a Republican gay.

For me, some kind of line is crossed when homophobic remarks are made and allegedly excusable because of "hypocrisy," whether actual, on the part of that particular individual, or imputed, because the individual is a Republican.

Diss him for being a Republican.

Diss him for being a hypocrite, if he has actually done something hypocritical.

But why use homophobic language to diss him, unless somewhere inside, you believe that something is wrong with being homosexual?

In reading some posts about outed gays, I have had the sense of "ah, an okay time for me to use homophobic language and cliches that would not be acceptable here under any other circumstance."

And I have had that kind of discussion in the past with DU posters who have used homophobic language and who have defended it as attacking the person only because he is a hypocrite and not because he is gay. However, it was not anti-hypocrite slurs or anti-Republican slurs in the post to which I was objecting, but anti gay slurs.

In fact, sometimes the posts say zero about hypocrisy or "Republicanism," but do include a lot of homophobic cliches. (That is what I meant in my prior post about trotting out the "light in the loafter" repertoire under the guise of attacking hypocrisy.) And, I don't think I like it.

I hope that is clearer?

[Sapphocrat]

14. There are hypocrites, and then there are just plain creeps.

I'll quote & reply out of chronological order, if that's OK...

I think my conflict comes partly from the kind of posts I've seen at DU when a closeted homosexual has been outed, especially a Republican homosexual. Out come the kind of homosphobic remarks that would never be acceptable at DU under any other conditions. Or not even necessarily outed. (Think Lindsey Graham.)

It would not be acceptable to diss all men or use anti-male cliches because this one had an adulterous affair. Yet, it seems acceptable to use homephobic language when piling on an inadvertently outed gay, especially a Republican gay. ...

Homophobic remarks are never acceptable, no matter who's being outed -- and you're right: some of DU's most shameful moments have been orgies of comments and epithets far worse than "light in the loafers." I feel as much Schadenfreude as anyone else when Republican hypocrisy (of any variety) is exposed, but I am utterly disgusted when anyone uses such a situation as an excuse to indulge in the kind of language they would never use to my face.

(I do use the words "homo" and "queer," because they're not offensive to me when they come from another LGBT person, or from one of our honorary "family" members. That's my hypocrisy showing, I'm sure -- but it's also a whole 'nother topic of discussion; i.e., what words are homophobic, and in what context. I'll spare you that for now, and move on, but I'm always open to discussing it.)

That doesn't mean I won't harp mercilessly on a genuine hypocrite, gay or straight -- but you'll never hear me use the opportunity (say, the case of a straight adulterer) to denigrate heterosexuality; e.g., to point to the instigator of an adulterous affair as "typical breeder," or to a rapist as typical of all (straight) men. But, for some reason, many of the same people who would go apoplectic over that sort of broadbrushing experience a complete disconnect when it comes to doing the same thing to someone gay, or who is perceived gay.

What really pisses me off just as much (sometimes more) is the "Everyone we hate is gay" meme. It's been beaten to death on DU (and not always by non-gay DUers); the one that made (makes) me the maddest is the Dubya + Victor Ashe rumor -- which, sadly, was propagated endlessly on DU by a long-gone (yes, dead) gay DUer, who was otherwise a stellar example of everything a smart, devoted, progressive activist should be. That, no doubt, made a lot of straight DUers think it was permissible to promote the fallacy that every homophobe is secretly gay -- which, for some, translates into "Everyone we hate is gay."

In reading some posts about outed gays, I have had the sense of "ah, an okay time for me to use homophobic language and cliches that would not be acceptable here under any other circumstance."

Exactly. It's never OK to use any kind of scandal (sexual or otherwise) as an excuse to employ homophobic -- or sexist, or racist, or any other -ist -- language or cliches about anyone. I don't think anyone would assume it was open season on Puerto Ricans just because (anti-gay, Republican, Puerto Rican) Roberto Arango-Vinent was caught posting photos of his ass on Grindr, or to start using the c-word again as long as we were talking about the affairs of Mary Bono Mack or Sue Myrick or Libby Dole. But, for some reason, there is that disconnect about gays.

What I don't understand is how so many people are blind to the fact that when they excuse themselves for using homophobic language when dissing a gay hypocrite, they're dissing all of us who are LGBT -- even if they might have at least enough awareness to use the utterly pathetic excuse, "...but I don't mean you -- you're not like that." One might as well tell an African-American "Black people in groups make me nervous -- I always cross the street when I see them coming... Oh, but I don't mean you -- you're not like them."

And I have had that kind of discussion in the past with DU posters who have used homophobic language and who have defended it as attacking the person only because he is a hypocrite and not because he is gay. However, it was not anti-hypocrite slurs or anti-Republican slurs in the post to which I was objecting, but anti gay slurs.

I appreciate you pointing it out when you see it. All we can do is keep trying to make the point. Sometimes it does pay off -- I've seen a handful of DUers, all of whom I believed were hopelessly enmired in the worst kind of ignorant bigotry -- evolve over the past decade into an awareness I never thought they were capable of. That's when I'm happy beyond words to admit that I was dead wrong about someone.

In fact, sometimes the posts say zero about hypocrisy or "Republicanism," but do include a lot of homophobic cliches. (That is what I meant in my prior post about trotting out the "light in the loafter" repertoire under the guise of attacking hypocrisy.) And, I don't think I like it.

Again, I think some people see it as an excuse for a free-for-all. Some know they're doing it -- of this, I have no doubt -- and feign ignorance, while others really are ignorant. The latter often learn and grow; the former never do.

But, let's say a Republican man who has never claimed that Republicans own morality is outed for an extra marital affair. Does he deserve to be piled on more than a Democrat who is caught in an extra marital affair?

I think so, for the simple reason that they're enabling, endorsing, and promoting the Holier-Than-Thou Party. If such a person were to speak out against the socially-conservative side of the GOP, well, that might be another thing -- but then that person would be well-advised to consider whether s/he is a Republican at all, or actually a Libertarian.

As far as gay Republicans go, I'm down on them whether they're actively homophobic or not; homophobia is practically a plank in the GOP platform (and is literally a plank in the platform of many state GOP organizations, such as the Texas GOP). Again, most, such as the Log Cabin Republicans, are in practice Libertarians. In any case, as long as they remain Republicans, they're self-defeating jerks who hurt everyone, including themselves. (But try to explain that to one of them and see how far you get.)

I don't know, but that is one issue: No matter if an individual Republican has even personally joined in the "holier than thou" behavior or not, is it okay to label him or her a hypocrite, simply because she or she is a member of the holier than thou Party?

Ditto about Republicans of any gender or orientation who have extra marital affairs, but have never individually claimed to own God, religion or family. Are they hypocrites for committing adultery, or just garden variety adulterers?

I think there are degrees. I think every Republican is wrong as wrong can be for propping up that abomination of a political party -- but certainly not every Republican is a hypocrite, unless he has been playing holier-than-thou, and gets caught doing something quite unholy. For example, I wouldn't call any of New York's Republican state legislators who voted in favor of marriage equality a hypocrite, even if he or she were caught in a drunken orgy, for the simple reason that s/he didn't try to exalt the "sanctity" of his or her marriage by holding anyone else down. Nor would I ridicule a former homophobe who had otherwise redeemed himself (more about that in a moment).

Great, big homophobes who never cheat (or never get caught) are not hypocrites -- just homophobic creeps. (Offhand, I can't think of any Republicans who fit this bill, but I'm sure they exist.)

For example, is Cheney's daughter a hypocrite about homosexuality, simply because she is gay and Republican? I honestly don't know.

Is Mary Cheney a hypocrite? Yes and no. She's first and foremost a selfish sell-out who doesn't give a damn about anyone but herself, her partner, and their children. She doesn't lie about who she is, but (and this is a big but) she could not enjoy her freedom to so much as live with her partner, let alone raise children with her, were she not taking advantage of the protections liberal LGBTs and LGBT allies had won for her.

In the same boat: Arthur Finkelstein, a Repub strategist who has made a very nice living for himself by running venomous attack campaigns against the Dem opponents of such hateful homophobes as Jesse Helms, and who spent his early career working for such not-exactly-gay-friendly Repubs as Reagan, Romney, Pataki, et al. (His most recent attack campaign, in my memory, targeted Hillary Clinton in her last Senate run.)

Finkelstein is as gay as one gets -- and as out as one gets: he married his partner in Massachusetts, and they're raising children together. Yet he worked faithfully to promote Helms, one of the vilest homophobes in history, who, if he'd had his way, would have quarantined every last "damned," "disgusting" homosexual on the planet off to some island to die.

So what do you call people like Cheney and Finkelstein, who are unapologetically out, yet 1) actively support the party that is doing everything in its power to take their rights away (and prevent them from gaining anymore), while 2) taking advantage of the rights won for them by the people they're actively working against? I can think of a lot of words to call people like that; "hypocrite" would be somewhere on the list, although not in the number-one position.

I guess sometimes "hypocrite" is just convenient word to use, for lack of a more accurate one. But, yes, there is definitely some major hypocrisy in Mary Cheney's (and Arthur Finkelstein's) blood.

But, here's the thing: as Democrats, we may or may not acknowledge that adultery, in and of itself is a bad thing. Ditto being a hypocrite is, in and of itself, a bad thing. We do not, however, say that being gay is, in and of itself, a bad thing.

I think adultery is a bad thing in the context of breaking a "solemn vow." If two people go into a marriage with the clear understanding and agreement that they're not going to be faithful (sexually, emotionally, or otherwise), it's none of my business, and I couldn't care less how they live their lives.

We MIGHT pile on a Democratic male who has committed adultery for the adultery, for his behavior, not for having been born with a penis and not for hypocrisy--unless he himself had done a lot of preaching about faithfulness.

First name that comes to mind: John Edwards. While he didn't do "a lot of preaching," his position on marriage equality was clear: he was against it. Over and over and over again, he stated he was against it. He also said he was opposed to DOMA, but only because states already had the right to ban same-sex marriage -- he was a real, separate-but-equal, "states' right" kind of hypocrite.

I don't even recall him conceding recognition of a "formal" inferior status, such as civil unions (even Obama, for all his squeamishness, will admit support for CUs); Edwards just kept delivering the same, vague, mealy-mouthed bullshit about hospital visitation rights, while letting each state decide, piecemeal, just how much they wanted to discriminate against us.

And meanwhile, what was Mister John "Sanctity of Marriage" Edwards doing?

I do recall his dismissiveness about the Massachusetts decision, brushing it off as "embrac(ing) the notion of gay marriage."

"Notion"? "Notion"?!

Notion: noun: 1. A conception of or belief about something. 2. A vague awareness or understanding of the nature of something.

You don't see me cheating on my wife or lying about babies I had in secret -- I take my vows seriously; I meant them when I said them, and they are just as "sacred" and real to me as the day I took them.

And yet my marriage is supposed to be the inferior one?

What a scumbag. What an asshole. What a hypocrite.

In the end, here's how I think of right-wing hypocrites (examples are off the top of my head, and do not include religious leaders who have been caught out -- that too is another discussion for another day):

The No-Brainers -- i.e., raging anti-gay bigots (and those who may not "rage," but who have a track record of anti-gay behavior, such as voting in favor of DOMA) who have (literally) been caught with their pants down: Newt Gingrich; Bob Barr; Henry Hyde; John Ensign; Larry Craig; Jim Kolbe (closeted; voted for DOMA; outed; still refused to support gay immigration rights while keeping his Panamanian boyfriend in the U.S. on a work visa); Jeff Miller (very nasty bigot; co-sponsor, Tenn. marriage ban; adulterer); Randall Tobias (Dubya's abstinence-only AIDS czar who was quietly shagging prostitutes); Paul Stanley (Tenn. legislator; Sunday school teacher; anti-gay; anti-choice; abstinence-only; adulterer); John Warner (WTF was Liz Taylor thinking?); Jim West; Sonny Bono (thrice-divorced; voted for DOMA); Matthew Glavin (big anti-gay crusader; major Clinton-impeachment crusader; outed after two arrests cruising gay pickup spots); Greg Davis (recently outed Mississippi mayor; a real "family values" type)...

Among the worst: Mark Foley: closeted, gay, Republican, voted in favor of DOMA. Worse, he was one of the most vocal crusaders for protecting children from online sexual predators -- a wonderful thing, until you realize he was an online predator (of teens, if not children). Just as bad (if not worse) -- and just as hypocritical (if not more): his colleagues and their many underlings who knew about his inapprorpaite behavior for years, and did nothing about it: John Boehner, Dennis Hastert, Rodney Alexander, John Shimkus, and many others.

Questionable Hypocrites -- liars, cheaters, closet cases, et al., with no noticeable track record of "preaching," but who prop up the Republican party: Jack Ryan, Michael Huffington, and... um... can't think of anyone else offhand.

Probable Hypocrites with long anti-gay track records, who still deny they're gay, no matter how many times somebody outs them: Lindsey Graham; David Dreier; Ed Schrock; Jim McCrery; Jay Timmons...

The Redeemed -- former hypocrites who have spent (or are currently spending) the rest of their lives trying to make up for the damage they inflicted during their years serving the Dark Side: David Brock (almost singlehandedly responsible for making up the "Troopergate" bullshit about Clinton; destroyed Anita Hill in a book filled with even more bullshit; BFF w/Ann Coulter until he came out of the closet; wrote must-read Blinded by the Right and now runs Media Matters), Mel White (not a Repub, AFAIK, but Jerry Falwell's ghostwriter); Jon Hinson (sad, sad closet case outed after sodomy arrests; became gay-rights activist)... Yeah, it's a short list.

Again, that's off the top of my head.

Ask me sometime about anti-gay clergy (aside from the Catholic priests) who preach about the evils of homosexuality while they're off raping children (first to mind: Tommy Gene Daniels). Do I attack all clergy caught in flagrante? "Heavens," no...

[No Elephants]

15. Thanks, I think my second post must have explained better where my uneasiness about

some DU posts was coming from.

I am glad that you observed some DU posters changing over time on the issue. Or, maybe they just learned to stay silent, which is still an improvement. "If you can't be good, be careful," has more than one meaning. Bigots need at least to be careful about running their mouths.

I have also noted the "anyone and everyone who is a homophobe is in denial about being gay" syndrome. Percentages tell us otherwise. Though it is difficult to get exact numbers for obvious reasons, I've heard something like 4 to 10% of the human population is gay. That alone makes it very unlikely that every Republican elected to office is gay.

I don't know if I am all the way there yet, but I am seeing your point about the likes of Lyn Cheney.

I guess I am reluctant to condemn everyone who is a Republican because, much as I never want a Republican to win an election, I don't believe in a one Party system, either.

However, that Party has gone way beyond the rightful realm of legitimate differences in political philosophy to preaching bigotry of many kinds--women, gays, non-whites (with the possible exception of Asians), religious bigotry and so on.

Still, there are Republicans who do differ with Democrats on issues like how to spend tax monies, how to tax, and whether power should be mostly in states or mostly in the federal government. And I do mean legitimate differences about state powers, not code for "People should be allowed to have Jim Crow, if they really want it."

I believe there are some who cannot relate to the bigotry of the Republicans, yet cannot support the political philosophies of the Democratic Party.

People who do have authentic political differences with Democrats from the right pretty much have nowhere else to go except the Republican Party (much as Democrats who differ with the triangulating Democratic Party establishment from the left are told they have nowhere else to go).

And I guess that is the source of my reluctance to say every Republican is a bigot or a hypocrite or something of that nature. I don't want imputed to me personally everything the Democratic Party has done. Heck, even FDR, whose heart and head were in incredibly good places in the Depression (until he bowed to RW deficit hawks) was CIC over a segregated military, was reluctant to publicly espouse equality lest it cost him and the Party Southern votes, and interned Japanese and, to a lesser extent, German and Italian people in WWII.

I don't want any of that imputed to me individually simply because I choose to be a Democrat.

ETA: I do understand the concept of taking ownerships of words oppressors use to put you down. As you know, use of the N word by African Americans and the b and c words by women is a hot topic. (Not surprisingly, I am of two minds about that as well. Maybe I see too many sides of issues?)

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. I almost kinda hope he stays in just for the lulz factor. 9_6 Freepers' heads would explode.

Not gay myself, but as Darth would say:

[ellisonz]

8. I don't think we've heard the last of this case.

[Sapphocrat]

9. You think right -- as long as I'm alive. ]:)

At the risk of another self-plug:

http://home.conservativebabylon.com/2012/02/20/paul-bab... /

(What really bothers me, far and above his closet-case hypocrisy, is his stint as headmaster of an East Coast "tough love" boarding school for "troubled teens.")

[ellisonz]

10. It just gets richer...

...thank you for the link.

He is incredibly stupid to continue to run. Hopefully the media decides to run with some of this, but I wouldn't trust them to go digging. Someone, somewhere has a story to tell about Paul Babeu that no one has heard yet; in fact, I'd wager he's got plenty more skeletons in his closet.

[classysassy]

16. Babboon the booty bandit

Yo sheriff,the backward clowns in the Grand Canyon state dislike you why would they elect you to serve them in Washington where gays abound,forget it paul,maybe you should return to your former state a much more liberal place.Another gay republican bites the dust,good riddance.