On The Jumping Of Sharks

Untitled document

Well, this unraveled faster than I believed possible. The left has overplayed the Foley hand to the point that there is now a brewing anti-homosexual witch hunt. Aimed at Republican staffers who happen to be gay. Gay Patriot takes a wee bit of exception to the whole matter.

Full citizen?  No party has the power or right to tell me I am a full citizen.  Supporting or opposing gay marriage does not make you a hypocrite.  It makes you question the policy on its face.  I am a full citizen thanks to the US Constitution.

Did it ever occur to Mr. Corn that the representatives and Senators he mentions that may or may not have gay staffers do not care about their sexual orientation yet value their participation as public servants?  Is it not rational that you can hire a gay staffer, but at the same time oppose PUBLIC POLICY POSITIONS that you are morally or philosophically opposed to without being labeled a homophobe?

Perhaps Mr. Corn is ignoring the fact that most gay conservatives identify more strongly in our American Identity than our Gay Identity.  Did that ever cross your mind, Mr. Corn?   Probably not since you seem to have had no problem outing a CIA agent and then letting others take the fall for your actions.

David Corn was the first person I read who mentioned this "list". I think the left is making a dreadful mistake and will pay for this one. Even though Mr. Corn denies the Foley matter is about homosexuality, this attempt to use the list as a political bludgeon makes the entire thing very much about homosexuality. And about the left's no longer secret loathing of gays. There are, after all, sharks to be jumped here. The left is busy doing so.

I have warned about this repeatedly, but I really never thought they would get to this point this quickly. Their October surprise is turning around on them with their help.

UPDATE: And we have a "Bingo!" The Radar website, really a gossip column in pixels as far as I can tell, has picked up the information that many conservatives had already noticed. There is a smoking gun out there with the bogus website that started the whole Foley flap. (Its funny, they call it an exclusive, but there have been any number of conservatives that noted this early on). But that info is going mainstream now. Shark jumped. Hand overplayed.

UPDATE: Others: American Digest – Masturgate (The word coined by Roger Simon), TRUA – betrayal, Townhall – never missing an opportunity, Classical Values,- rather big, Riehl World – on tolerance, Confederate Yankee – Big Tent or Large White Sheet? Ace – Good Times. James Joyner – Maybe not. Wizbang Politics – reach exceeds grasp. Flopping Aces – Uh Oh – Consenting Adults being outed? Sister Toldjah – Wear boots. (Also a very disturbing photo – taking telephoto pictures through Hastert's windows – NOT good, media. Really not good.). PJM – Big roundup.

This entry was posted in Left Wing, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to On The Jumping Of Sharks

  1. bbbustard says:

    “and about the left’s no longer secret loathing of gays.”


    Do you think that the left loathes gays more than the right does?

  2. Gaius says:

    Actually, yes. The left believes its own rhetoric about the right.

  3. Pingback: A Blog For All

  4. Bill Franklin says:

    > > Do you think that the left loathes gays more than the right does?
    > Actually, yes. The left believes its own rhetoric about the right.

    Welcome to the right-wing spin zone! At least I hope you’re spewing right wing rhetoric and don’t actually believe what you’re saying. The vast, VAST majority of gays despise Bush and Republicans (I’m not gay but my ex loved to hang out with them so I know their politics well). Gays feel this way because of the treatment they have received by Republicans. For you to imply that Democrats are worse is patently absurd and baseless.

    And as for this “gay witch hunt” as you call it, one explanation for the list’s creation might be to PO those uber-conservative voters that don’t like gays, by exposing that the Republican party has gays at all levels. That knowledge might de-motivate hard-line conservatives from coming out and voting for Republicans. That’s not gay-bashing, that’s exposing the apprently painful truth to those who are closed minded enough to be upset with gays in the Republican party. If Republicans really were as open to gays as you claim, why would they even characterize a list of gay Republicans as witch hunt? Equating gays to witches sound pretty homophobic to me.

  5. Gaius says:

    You are really quite tiresome – especially given that you are but a sockpuppet of yourself. Yourself being what, I’m not sure.

  6. JoeP says:

    You totally miss the point of David Corn’s post. There is a huge amount of anger in the right that a homosexual congressman’s sexual orientation could be the downfall of the Republican leadership. They ignore the fact that the leaderships problem is not that there is a homosexual in their midst. Instead the house leadership attempted to cover up the pediaphilic behavior when they had reason to believe it was a problem.

    David’s concern is that these right wing idealogues will “out” these staffers to expunge the Congressional staff of homosexuals so the homosexual problem will go away. Democrats are not bothered if a person were outed, frankly their tent is big and accepting of differing lifestyle choices.

    It is the “Social Values” crowd in the Republican party who have the problem with homosexuals. Since the Republicans can’t win elections without the “Social Values” crowd’s active support, the Republican Leaderships will need to take drastic measures to motivate them in November. Ther perfect solution–out the homosexuals. Why not sacrifice a couple of staffers in order to retain power?

  7. syn says:


    Gay activists outed a gay man in a rather bizarre way for gay activist standards (judging lifestyle behavior) because he was a Republican and, according to you and your ex-love’s gay friends, all gays hate Republicans because of the treatment they have received by Republicans (even though a democrat president signed defense of marriage act).

    Basically this means that any gay who does not obey the gay activist’s ideological party line in thought, word and deed will be tarred and feathered then cast out into the barren wilderness. Aay activists are requiring that if one if gay they cannot be treated as an individual nor respected for holding views in opposition to what gay activists hold.

    Do you not see anything creepy (or rather fascistic) in this approach?

    I thought the progressive Left’s treatment of blacks, throwing Oreo cookies at them and calling them Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas, simply because a black person held views independent of the collective ideology was nasty but this last tactic by the progresive Left really shows in word, deed and action just how vicious are these tactics the collective will use in order to seize power.

    Foley’s actions were unbecoming a public servant and he resigned but I never my wildest dreams imagined that gay activists would reach this level of outrage over a text message between an older gay and a younger gay man considering this behavior is common among the gay community.

    One fact in all of this, the progressvie Left will never be able to use the ‘what I do in my private life is noboby’s business’ argument and many in the gay community will be making some major lifestyle changes with regard to sexual behavior.

    Are gay activists saying that they are the new ‘puritians’?

  8. Gaius says:

    No, I didn’t miss Corn’s point. You did.

  9. Donna says:

    Lost in all this secondary focus on who bashes gays is the serious matter of a politically motivated cover-up by persons we should be able to count on to put the safety of kids ahead of the safety of their party. Who among those ‘in the know’ had the courage and integrity to, first of all, fully act to protect the teenagers?

    The most important fact that I have read about this matter is that the concerned persons went to Reynolds with it, Reynolds being in charge of maintaining political power for the congressional Republicans.

  10. Gaius says:

    Who sat on the information for political reasons and acted as an accessory after the fact? Who is now turning this into a three ring circus?

    Who is busy jumping sharks?

  11. Donna says:

    Gaius, for some time, the majority in the House of Representatives have blocked the minority from having a role in the House’s business. I have written my Republican representative about this practice, which effectively denies our whole country the input and contributions of a nearly half the legislators who could have been helping to deal with all legislative decisions.
    It is a bit late to blame the minority for anything that occurs in the House of Representatives, when the majority institutionally created a virtual monopoly on all matters, even to the point of failing to tell the page committee’s lone Democrat of the Foley suspicions.
    Let’s hope that that inane ‘monopoly’ behavior is dumped, whichever party is in the majority. We need all representative voices to be able to be able to be heard in Congress.

  12. Gaius says:

    It was no different when the Dems were in majority and it will be no different when the Dems regain majority. You are seriously deluded if you think otherwise.

  13. Dan says:

    Clowns…All of you.

    Do any of you seriously think this is because Foley is gay, rather than because the pages he was “contacting” were UNDERAGE.

    The right is turning this into a referendum on homosexuality in politics because it’s the only way to save face in the onslaught of negative attention that the house GOPers are getting.

    The BEST part of all of this “Dems don’t like gays” crap that the Right is throwing out there, is that the Dems didn’t leak the information. GOP staffers did.

  14. Donna says:

    Gaius, it gets a bit tiresome to have the points I made swept aside by some version of ‘everybody does it’. That happened some time ago when I was critical of Bush traveling the country on the taxpayers’ money doing private fundraising for one party….and you just responded that ‘all presidents have done that’.
    Now, I say that it is wrong for the majority party to keep the minority out of the loop, then expect to lay blame on the minority for troubling issues….and you respond with just another sweeping generalization of ‘everybody does it’.
    Does ‘everybody does it’, even if true, make such behavior ok in your eyes?

  15. Gaius says:

    It is the way the Congress has always been organized. At least since the two party system came into being. The checks and balances are provided by the two chambers and the Senate rules that allow a minority to block a majority – that is what the filibuster is.

    Wishing for another system is a different issue.

Comments are closed.