RNC Chairman Gay?

[wiffleball 4,679]

Have you guys heard this? I just saw this on Youtube. Maher 'outed' Ken Mehlman, the HEAD (so to speak) of the RNC on Larry King. - Re-aired versions were edited out. Apparently, the guy hasn't denied it and it's the worst secret in Washington.

 

 

- Wow. The GOP is really screwy these days....

 

 

link

[akaoni 0]

Old news...this has been around for quite some time. Ken Mehlman's gay...there are lots of closeted homosexuals in the Republican party. They just can't advertise it because it would piss off their constituancies...

 

...did I mention that I like to use ellipsis...

[edjr 5,719]

Bill Maher rocks.

 

GB HBO for giving this guy his own show.

[Chronic Husker 85]

Horrible timing. How did this not come out before the election?

 

[MDC 5,967]

I've got mixed feelings about this (insert lame joke here).

 

On the one hand I don't like this recent trend of outting. It's nobody else's business what Ken Mehlman does in the bedroom or on his own time. On the other hand, guys like Mehlan and really the GOP set themselves up for this kind of thing. Apparenly there are a lot of gays in the Republican ranks, the Beltway types know all about it and have no problem with it, but they throw these people under the bus for the sake of appeasing the knuckle-draggers in their party. Gay-bashing is part of the Karl Rove strategy for winning elections but it failed this year and after Foley, Haggard, Mehlman, etc. I'm not so sure it's ever going to work again.

[wiffleball 4,679]

I've got mixed feelings about this (insert lame joke here).

 

On the one hand I don't like this recent trend of outting. It's nobody else's business what Ken Mehlman does in the bedroom or on his own time. On the other hand, guys like Mehlan and really the GOP set themselves up for this kind of thing. Apparenly there are a lot of gays in the Republican ranks, the Beltway types know all about it and have no problem with it, but they throw these people under the bus for the sake of appeasing the knuckle-draggers in their party. Gay-bashing is part of the Karl Rove strategy for winning elections but it failed this year and after Foley, Haggard, Mehlman, etc. I'm not so sure it's ever going to work again.

 

 

I think anybody who sets themselves up in a position of power AND hypocrisy pretty much has it coming. I don't care if you like to take it up the pooper, but when you're doing that AND at the same time saying "homosexuality is an abomination" and/or advocating against Gay marriage, you pretty much deserve to be outed - not as a homo, but as a hypocrite.

 

To me, the issue isn't being gay - it's the hypocrisy. It should be viewed no differently than an anti-drug politician snorting coke when the cameras aren't on.

[Jeremy 0]

. Gay-bashing is part of the Karl Rove strategy for winning elections but it failed this year

 

Yep. That card has been played out. We wrote discrimination this year into the Wisconsin constitution . That didn't translate into success for the GOP candidates, though. The couple races that were supposed to be close both went to the Democrats.

[MDC 5,967]

To me, the issue isn't being gay - it's the hypocrisy. It should be viewed no differently than an anti-drug politician snorting coke when the cameras aren't on.

 

I see what you're saying but my point is this - It's nobody's business what Ken Mehlman does. And when Dems or left-leaning types out guys like Mehlman, they're basically throwing KM to the homerphobic hordes they claim are the enemy. I can see both sides of the argument but I'm not comfortable with banking on homerphobes to punish your political enemies.

[Soonerman 0]

I think anybody who sets themselves up in a position of power AND hypocrisy pretty much has it coming. I don't care if you like to take it up the pooper, but when you're doing that AND at the same time saying "homosexuality is an abomination" and/or advocating against Gay marriage, you pretty much deserve to be outed - not as a homo, but as a hypocrite.

 

To me, the issue isn't being gay - it's the hypocrisy. It should be viewed no differently than an anti-drug politician snorting coke when the cameras aren't on.

 

You're a class act. Mehlman did nothing to deserve being outed.

[Chronic Husker 85]

You're a class act. Mehlman did nothing to deserve being outed.

I'd do him.

[wiffleball 4,679]

Mehlman did nothing to deserve being outed.

 

 

The MINUTE you take money from and advocate the agendas of people who would bash gays, who say outright and plainly that "homersexuality is an abomination", you've committed an act of hypocrisy and disservice to both the gay community you belong to, the constituency you purport to represent, and the party you commit to serve.

 

Look at it this way: Clinton's BJ had no impact on his job performance. His sex life shouldn't be a matter of congressional inquiry - but it was. Why? Because the GOP specifically and repeatedly bangs the "character" drum - holding leaders of their party and representatives of the people to a sometimes ridiculously high standard. Clinton never came out against adultery or BJ's, Mehlman did repeatedly against homersexual marriage & gay rights. If the head of the party doesn't live by the standards & morals held by members of the party, who should?

[De Novo 0]

You're a class act. Mehlman did nothing to deserve being outed.

 

Yes, he does. He's heads a party that biblethumps Christian values and openly insults homosexuals. He got what was coming.

[MDC 5,967]

You're a class act. Mehlman did nothing to deserve being outed.

 

I sort of agree, but still ... what does it say about the GOP that guys like Mehlman have to live in the closet? A core voter block of the Republican party is more concerned with who Mehlman sleeps with or loves than how good he is at his job. So I can agree with you on outting being wrong, but it most Republicans are only upset because they're beholden to the knuckle-draggers in their ranks.

[edjr 5,719]

Yes, he does. He's heads a party that biblethumps Christian values and openly insults homosexuals. He got what was coming.

 

 

a hot load in the keister?

[Soonerman 0]

The MINUTE you take money from and advocate the agendas of people who would bash gays, who say outright and plainly that "homersexuality is an abomination", you've committed an act of hypocrisy and disservice to both the gay community you belong to, the constituency you purport to represent, and the party you commit to serve.

 

Look at it this way: Clinton's BJ had no impact on his job performance. His sex life shouldn't be a matter of congressional inquiry - but it was. Why? Because the GOP specifically and repeatedly bangs the "character" drum - holding leaders of their party and representatives of the people to a sometimes ridiculously high standard. Clinton never came out against adultery or BJ's, Mehlman did repeatedly against homersexual marriage & gay rights. If the head of the party doesn't live by the standards & morals held by members of the party, who should?

 

so it's not possible to be gay and against gay marriage?

 

The only way he would be a hypocrite on the gay marriage issue is if he were married to a man and at the same time working to keep it illegal for others.

[Chronic Husker 85]

GB Soonerman.

[Jeremy 0]

so it's not possible to be gay and against gay marriage?

 

That would be sort of like a black person saying black people should have to ride in the back of the bus, but I suppose it's possible.

[wiffleball 4,679]

so it's not possible to be gay and against gay marriage?

 

The only way he would be a hypocrite on the gay marriage issue is if he were married to a man and at the same time working to keep it illegal for others.

 

Do you understand the basis for the ban on gay marriage? Every time you talk to someone who is against gay marriage, they whip out Leviticus. "Homersexuality is an abomination...." Their basis against gay marriage is that the very act of being a 'mo is an ABOMINATION - the very worst word in the bible. (so they say) The basis of their argument isn't against gay marriage - it's against homosexuality itself.

 

Look, I think he could have done some real good by coming out from the git-go and saying: "Look, I'm gay, but I don't believe Gays should be able to do this because of x, y and z." THAT would have given the GOP (the people paying him), & their constituents (the ones supplying the money) some real credibility.

 

Instead? the GOP looks like hypocrites (if not fools) and they lose ground in this argument and lose the faith of their constituency.

 

And - You seem to be glossing over everything BUT gay marriage. The GOP is against any form of special rights for 'mos, actively against "the gay agenda" in schools, libraries, TV and Movies, and actively supports those that say some pretty vile things about the little pillow biters. - How anyone with ANY sort of morality could take money from, publicly agree with, and represent that - all the while living contrary to all of that - is beyond me.

[Chronic Husker 85]

So, wiffleball.....you wanna hang out next week?

[wiffleball 4,679]

So, wiffleball.....you wanna hang out next week?

 

 

I was gonna head down to the Springs and hook up with Ted Faagard for a little meth bender - and ya know - whatever comes next....

[Chronic Husker 85]

Sweet.

 

I'm in there.

[itsbigmoni 1]

You're a class act. Mehlman did nothing to deserve being outed.

 

You act like being outed is such a horrible thing. If he's gay then he's gay. Why should people have to keep the secret? Its his lifestyle and theres nothing wrong with it. It's stupid to suggest that he should have to hide it as long as he's involved in the republican party.

 

And i agree with other posters who say its not about being gay, its about the hyprocisy. Both parties are guilty of it, and both parties should be bashed for doing it.

 

But tell me why he should hide it? Whats wrong with "outing" him.

[D_House 0]

You act like being outed is such a horrible thing. If he's gay then he's gay. Why should people have to keep the secret? Its his lifestyle and theres nothing wrong with it. It's stupid to suggest that he should have to hide it as long as he's involved in the republican party.

 

And i agree with other posters who say its not about being gay, its about the hyprocisy. Both parties are guilty of it, and both parties should be bashed for doing it.

 

But tell me why he should hide it? Whats wrong with "outing" him.

it should be his own decision. not everyone wants their sexuality to be public knowledge. it's his right to keep that information private if he so desires.

[dirty dug 0]

Do you understand the basis for the ban on gay marriage? Every time you talk to someone who is against gay marriage, they whip out Leviticus. "Homersexuality is an abomination...." Their basis against gay marriage is that the very act of being a 'mo is an ABOMINATION - the very worst word in the bible. (so they say) The basis of their argument isn't against gay marriage - it's against homosexuality itself.

 

Look, I think he could have done some real good by coming out from the git-go and saying: "Look, I'm gay, but I don't believe Gays should be able to do this because of x, y and z." THAT would have given the GOP (the people paying him), & their constituents (the ones supplying the money) some real credibility.

 

Instead? the GOP looks like hypocrites (if not fools) and they lose ground in this argument and lose the faith of their constituency.

 

And - You seem to be glossing over everything BUT gay marriage. The GOP is against any form of special rights for 'mos, actively against "the gay agenda" in schools, libraries, TV and Movies, and actively supports those that say some pretty vile things about the little pillow biters. - How anyone with ANY sort of morality could take money from, publicly agree with, and represent that - all the while living contrary to all of that - is beyond me.

 

So if you're a 'mo you deserve special rights?

[wiffleball 4,679]

So if you're a 'mo you deserve special rights?

 

 

I don't think so. But that's not a discussion I'm gonna start this close to happy hour on a Friday!

[dirty dug 0]

I don't think so. But that's not a discussion I'm gonna start this close to happy hour on a Friday!

 

Seems to me in the post above you were saying it's a bad thing to be against giving 'mos special rights.

 

[akaoni 0]

As I stated previously, this was pretty common knowledge about Mehlman. I can't remember where I first read that he was gay, but it's really not that big a secret, so I don't know if Maher really outed Ken or just said what most everyone inside the beltway already knows...that said, the issue of outing people is a pretty tricky issue.

 

In general I think that just about everyone is entitled to privacy, from the the faux-celebrities like Paris Hilton or Jessica Simpson (whose fame is due purely to the tabloid media and paparazzi) to politicians and political activists. Even if you're in the public eye, I don't think that the general public has any right to know what you do behind closed doors.

 

That said, the Republican use of homophobia and gay marriage as a wedge issue is pretty disgusting. First, they're generally hypocrytes, there are lots of gays who work in the Republican party, with whom the guys pushing the gay marriage ban have no problems working with. But they're willing to exploit others' predjuice to the hilt, if it means they get reelected. In the end, if they have to take the marginalize and take away the rights of some Americans to life, liberty and the pursuit of happieness, they'll do it to retain power...

 

...so to get back to the point; is it right to "out Mehlman" ? Probably not, but of course, everyone knew anyhow, so Maher's comments don't really seem that out of line to me...

[wiffleball 4,679]

it should be his own decision. not everyone wants their sexuality to be public knowledge. it's his right to keep that information private if he so desires.

 

 

Funny how Republicans are so quick to point out the sexual exploits of their competitors, yet somehow champion the above when it applies to one of their own. I think the newfound sense of privacy should apply equally to Gary Hart and Bill Clinton (for example). I also think if the GOP feels this way, they shouldn't have lobbied so hard AGAINST the repeal of some pretty archaic 'anti-sodomy' laws around the country not too long ago.

 

 

Being gay: Fine.

 

Being gay and actively working to take away the rights and privledges of other gays?: Not so much.

[itsbigmoni 1]

Its like being a black KKK member.

[De Novo 0]

You act like being outed is such a horrible thing. If he's gay then he's gay. Why should people have to keep the secret? Its his lifestyle and theres nothing wrong with it. It's stupid to suggest that he should have to hide it as long as he's involved in the republican party.

 

And i agree with other posters who say its not about being gay, its about the hyprocisy. Both parties are guilty of it, and both parties should be bashed for doing it.

 

But tell me why he should hide it? Whats wrong with "outing" him.

 

Hey look, it's the gay guy.

[itsbigmoni 1]

You're good. That was real funny. Its the gay guy. Thats a killer. If i laugh any more than i already am i might just laugh the gay out of me.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The MINUTE you take money from and advocate the agendas of people who would bash gays, who say outright and plainly that "homersexuality is an abomination", you've committed an act of hypocrisy and disservice to both the gay community you belong to, the constituency you purport to represent, and the party you commit to serve.

 

Look at it this way: Clinton's BJ had no impact on his job performance. His sex life shouldn't be a matter of congressional inquiry - but it was. Why? Because the GOP specifically and repeatedly bangs the "character" drum - holding leaders of their party and representatives of the people to a sometimes ridiculously high standard. Clinton never came out against adultery or BJ's, Mehlman did repeatedly against homersexual marriage & gay rights. If the head of the party doesn't live by the standards & morals held by members of the party, who should?

 

But Clinton did place his left hand on the BIBLE, raise his right hand, and swore to uphold the Constitution and the LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.

 

He then proceded to break said laws by committing perjury in a court of law during a lawsuit against him.

 

Clinton also swore before God and all present at his wedding to fosake all others.

 

Hypocrisy? Why yes, yes it is.

 

[Franknbeans 46]

so it's not possible to be gay and against gay marriage?

 

The only way he would be a hypocrite on the gay marriage issue is if he were married to a man and at the same time working to keep it illegal for others.

Do you even read what you type?

[Soonerman 0]

Do you even read what you type?

 

So you can't show me where I'm wrong, then?

[Korben Dallas 0]

But Clinton did place his left hand on the BIBLE, raise his right hand, and swore to uphold the Constitution and the LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.

 

He then proceded to break said laws by committing perjury in a court of law during a lawsuit against him.

 

Clinton also swore before God and all present at his wedding to fosake all others.

 

Hypocrisy? Why yes, yes it is.

 

 

 

Actually, it didn't pass, did it? The Senate chose not to "convict" on those charges. You just want it to be perjury. I don't remember a judge ruling on that. I just remember a witch hunt over a blow job.

 

 

 

btw: Good for Ken. Eventually the voters will realize that most of the gay men in this country are card carrying GOP members and we'll be done with it.

[Soonerman 0]

I don't remember a judge ruling on that.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

In April 1999, Judge Wright found President Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay Jones $91,000 for the expenses incurred as the result of Clinton's evasive and misleading answers. [3] Wright then referred Clinton's conduct to the Arkansas Bar for disciplinary action, and on January 19, 2001, the day before President Clinton left the White House, Clinton entered into an agreement with the Arkansas Bar and Independent Counsel Robert Ray under which Clinton consented to a five-year suspension of his law license.

[DanXIII 8]

That's it. I'm not voting for Bill Clinton again.