Fight fire with fire?

Politics International Politics
1

I do not like personal political attacks.
I do not like divisive political campaigns.

Does exposing apparent hypocrisy in the one qualify as the other?
Is it justified? Necessary?

[quote=“Huffington Post”]From CNN:

During the live broadcast of CNN’s Larry King Live, Bill Maher suggested to Larry King that Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman is gay. Watch the clip from the live broadcast and read the transcript: [removed from YouTube]

Partial transcript of Bill Maher’s Live appearance on Larry King Live:

BM: A lot of the chiefs of staff, the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party, are gay. I don’t want to mention names, but I will Friday night…

LK:You will Friday night?

BM: Well, there’s a couple of big people who I think everyone in Washington knows who run the Republican…

LK: You will name them?

BM: Well, I wouldn’t be the first. I’d get sued if I was the first. Ken Mehlman. Ok, there’s one I think people have talked about. I don’t think he’s denied it when he’s been, people have suggested, he doesn’t say…

LK: I never heard that. I’m walking around in a fog. I never…Ken Mehlman? I never heard that. But the question is…

BM: Maybe you don’t go to the same bathhouse I do, Larry.

When CNN re-aired the interview later that night, they edited out Larry King and Bill Maher’s discussion of Mehlman’s potential homosexuality. Watch the censored clip and read the censored transcript:

Partial transcript of Bill Maher’s re-aired appearance on Larry King Live:

BM: A lot of the chiefs of staff, the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party, are gay. I don’t want to mention names, but I will Friday night…

LK:You will Friday night?

BM: Well, there’s a couple of big people who I think everyone in Washington knows who run the Republican…

LK: You will name them?

BM: Well, I wouldn’t be the first. I’d get sued if I was the first.

LKL: But the question is…

BM: Maybe you don’t go to the same bathhouse I do, Larry.[/quote]

2

[quote=“Jaboney”]

LKL: But the question is…

BM: Maybe you don’t go to the same bathhouse I do, Larry.[/quote][/quote]

:astonished: Bill Mahers just outted himself ? with that line? Funny, he must be on the downlow, because he’s rather been open about the type of women he only perfers. hmmmmm

3

Why the implication that being gay and republican automatically makes one a hypocrite? Jaboney, I figured with your well known record of tolerance would give someone credit for not associating with a party solely on the basis of sexuality.

Having said that, I don’t see much problem with pointing out other’s hypocrisy, as long as it’s true and done in a matter of fact way, as opposed to overly embellishing it.

4

Yes, redandy, you’re right. Which is one reason why I said “apparent hypocrisy”.

Even taking aim at those who put sexual ethics front and center, I am not eager to point fingers.

Mark Foley, chairing a committee on the protection of children and sponsoring legislation to protect minors from online sexual predators, while trolling for underage young men, would seem to present a slam-dunk case of hypocrisy.

Rev. Ted Haggard may not. Much as he rails against ‘sexual immorality’ and homosexuality, he may very well regard his own actions as deeply wrong. Maybe that makes him a hypocrite, maybe he’s just weaker and more (publicly) flawed than the rest of us. :idunno:

I see no reason why sexual ethics or sexual identity should necessarily trump other political issues when it comes to choosing a place to hang one’s hat.

Like I said, I don’t like. Done in a matter of fact, unembellished manner… maybe. I really don’t know. I’m curious as to what others think.

5

[quote=“Jaboney”]
I see no reason why sexual ethics or sexual identity should necessarily trump other political issues when it comes to choosing a place to hang one’s hat. [/quote]

I don’t see why one’s sexual preferences has any place in politics to begin with?

6

True. But like race, gender, and other things that shouldn’t matter, it gets dragged in by those who want to use it as a wedge issue, and those who recognize that it (unfortunately) is a social issue.

7

Occasionally I can see why race and gender may have a place but sex no.

8

If a gay person joined that party due to other reasons, that wouldn’t necessarily be hypocrisy, but it might be stupidity, kinda like when poor people and minorities vote Republican. Or maybe the person just placed far greater emphasis on other values and causes associated with the party. If that person spoke openly against gays or voted against gay interests, THAT would be hypocrisy.

9

Where’s the “dizzy” emoticon? :laughing: That was a lot.

10

[quote=“Namahottie”]Occasionally I can see why race and gender may have a place but sex no.[/quote] If you were unable to marry the person of your choice, to enjoy the same spousal rights and benefits, or were subject to intimidation based on your sexuality, would that make it a political issue for you?

11

Good reminder. Point served. :bravo:

12

Thank you very much. :bow:

Now, knowing what the stakes are for the average Joe, imagine how much higher the stakes must be for a major player in the inner circle. In addition to all the usual terrors that accompany exposure, they risk their livelihoods, reputations, active personal animosity (as opposed to generalized contempt), and perhaps the possibility of making a difference from the inside.

Beyond the violation of privacy, that makes outings all the nastier.

The stakes are high, but do the ends justify the means?
:idunno:

13

The Republicans have long been known for their opposition to gay rights. The rhetoric of the likes of Rick Santorum and Antonin Scalia have shown a visceral hatred toward gays.

Hell, anti-gay sentiment is even in the official Republican Party Platform of 2004:

States should not recognize gay marriage from other states.
Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

14

Jaboney, my apologies, I probably phrased my initial response a little harsher than I should have. (thus violating my own rule)

Dragonbones, so would it be hypocrisy for a rich person to vote democrat based on their support for less privileged folks?

15

The Republicans have long been known for their opposition to gay rights. The rhetoric of the likes of Rick Santorum and Antonin Scalia have shown a visceral hatred toward gays.

Hell, anti-gay sentiment is even in the official Republican Party Platform of 2004:

States should not recognize gay marriage from other states.
Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say long have been know. I think this is rather recent that the Republicans have been on this kick.
Back when Clinton started getting into hot water with “Don’t ask, Don’t tell.” for the military, he was supported by, of all people, the grandfather of the modern conservative movement, Barry Goldwater.

If I recall, he said something like "Hell, gays in the military, I’m sure I served with a few, Do they shoot straight, thats all I care about. " He then went on to say that government doesn’t belong in the damn bedroom.
Turn’s out “Mr. Conservative” was pretty moderate compared to these jack-booted morons who took over the Republican Party.

I wish there more Goldwater’s in today’s Republican Party.

16

[quote]National Defense Authrization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Senate - September 9, 1993)

So what the bill codifies are only the most restrictive portions of the administration’s compromise, leaving the cornerstones of the
President’s policy out. So the don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue compromise that most Americans, in polls, thought was a good
step forward and a fair step forward–56 percent of the country thought it was a good step forward–that is not what is being
codified in the bill before us.

My third reason for moving to strike section 546 relates to my feelings on the policy itself, whether codified or not. As former
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Barry Goldwater has stated, banning loyal Americans from the Armed Forces
because of their sexual orientation is just plain un-American.

I believe Senator Goldwater is correct. The issue is not whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve their country in
uniform; they do, and they have done so with honor and distinction throughout the history of the U.S. military.

[/quote]

I believe Barry would also say that depriving these Americans of their civil rights is un-American

17

[quote][url=http://online.logcabin.org/about/]Who we are

Log Cabin Republicans courageously stand on the front lines of today’s most important battleground for gay and lesbian civil rights. We are the nation’s leading voice for fairness, inclusion, and tolerance in the GOP.

Our party stands at a crossroads. The GOP must choose between fairness and freedom or intolerance and exclusion. Log Cabin works tirelessly to make sure the Republican Party chooses the right path. Ending up on the wrong side of history will cost the GOP for decades to come. So we tirelessly strive to achieve liberty and equality for all Americans.

What we believe

We are loyal Republicans. We believe in low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. Log Cabin represents an important part of the American family-taxpaying, hard working people who proudly believe in this nation’s greatness. We also believe all Americans have the right to liberty, freedom, and equality. Log Cabin stands up against those who preach hatred and intolerance. We stand up for the idea that all Americans deserve to be treated equal-regardless of their sexual orientation.

Why we exist

The mere existence of our organization recognizes the fact that the Republican Party still has a long way to go on issues affecting gay and lesbian civil rights. In recent years, the GOP has made important strides toward inclusion, however much more must be done. Too many people in the party remain hostile to gay and lesbian civil rights. Log Cabin will confront the radical right’s bigotry head-on as we join the majority of Republicans who believe inclusion wins[/url].[/quote]

I am not a member, but I don’t see this group as being hypocritical.
In response to Jaboney regarding outing of gay republicans as Bill Maher did with Ken Mehlman (the truth of this is still unknown), I think it is despicable.
With the Haggard situation in Colorado where the guy is a pastor, and he rails against homosexuality, and actively seeks to deny gays their civil rights - HELL YEAH - he’s a hypocrit and SHOULD be outed. Add to that that he’s an illegal drug user. Personally, I don’t care what you do as long as you don’t drive and endanger others, but he stands against this type of behavior.

Bodo

18

[quote=“Bodo”][quote][url=http://online.logcabin.org/about/]Who we are

Log Cabin Republicans courageously stand on the front lines of today’s most important battleground for gay and lesbian civil rights. We are the nation’s leading voice for fairness, inclusion, and tolerance in the GOP…[/url].[/quote]

I am not a member, but I don’t see this group as being hypocritical.[/quote]

:bravo: Well said, Bodo. I don’t see that group as hypocritical either.

In our system, supporting/voting for a political party involves choosing the “basket” of positions that --on balance-- you find to be a better basket than the alternatives. Few of us are lucky enough to find a party (or even an individual candidate) that we would not differ with on some issues – even important ones. That’s life. :idunno:

19

That’s how you ended up with a basket case, in Bush, I guess.