Queerty is better as a member
Gawker’s Brian Moylan and Out editor Aaron Hicklen
That whole “red carpet” event sounds like the same silly self-congratulatory clique as always.
Let’s see, Ken Mehlman, “helped” with marriage equality in one state, held a fundraiser in another and hmmmm, how many states did he have a hand in helping pass anti-marriage equality laws?
Sorry, the bad deeds still outweigh the good deeds.
Oh yes, diplomacy — between the “I’m evolving” Democrats and the “I’m evolving” Republicans — hell, the whole nation is evolving — and yet, apparently, one side is expected to “evolve” immediately and is terrible if they don’t — while the other side is given license to “evolve” in its sweet tuckus time — and that’s OK — which seems to be the same time frame — let me know when the Democrats publicly castigate Democrat Ruben “Gays are worth of death” Diaz. Oh do tell me when both sides have evolved enough for me to know which side to join. Until then, a pox on both their sides.
But I really don’t want to live in a nation where one side is evolving faster/slower than the other side is evolving — while being told that I must join one side or the other — lest I not evolve as others decree. Egad.
No. 3 · QJ201 wrote, ‘Let’s see, Ken Mehlman, “helped” with marriage equality in one state, held a fundraiser in another and hmmmm, how many states did he have a hand in helping pass anti-marriage equality laws?”
Possibly zero, although he did talk to people pushing the anti-gay laws in Ohio and I presume other states. Those conversations were probably geared to the number-one item on his performance review – getting Bush re-elected. He probably told them that Bush was pushing an constitutional amendment (but not that is support would go away after the election) in order to generate some positive statements about Bush in the marketing they sent to supporters.
It apparently didn’t work all that well for Bush according to one analysis: check out http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/SLGR2006.pdf for details (its a research paper trying to estimate to what extent the gay-marriage initiatives influenced the presidential election).
In any case, if Mehlman really helped, there should be a paper trail – records showing things like funding going from the RNC to the initiative backers.
A Reuters blog http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/03/10/karl-rove-says-did-not-ask-for-gay-marriage-fight/ describes Rove’s current statement about it – Rove claims they had the issue forced on them by the “liberal” Massachusetts Supreme Court. Now, nobody in his right mind should believe a word coming out of Rove’s mouth – he’s such a political operative that he’s undoubtedly permanently spinning – so what is interesting is that he’d make such a statement at all. It probably indicates that Rove knows that public opinion is changing rapidly on this issue, so Rove’s trying to position himself so that he doesn’t get blamed for what he did in 2004.
Oddly, you see a lot of angry people on QUEERTY wanting Mehlman’s head who are completely silent about Rove when it is Rove who probably did the real damage. Rove even fooled the Christians – getting into bed with them figuratively to try to get Bush elected while very likely being an atheist [ http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2007/04/christopher_hitchens_karl_rove.php ].
He is kind of cute
Is our community in such short supply of heroes that we have to elevate douchebags like Ken Mehlman?
@Lyn: Yes he is, in this picture. Which is very likely airbrushed and underneath about a kilo of makeup. He doesn’t look nearly as attractive in other, real photos.
I came out at 16, in the 1980s, and it hurt and it hurt my career. Integrity is integrity and I remember every gay boy who treated me like shit while he went on to corporate success because he was a liar. There’s no sympathy for the closet case here, but there is nothing but loathing for the likes of Mehlman, who made a point of FUCKING OVER those like him to get ahead so much more blatently than those who stay in the closet do to their fellow countrymen and women wrong. So often I hear that coming out of the closet is “personal,” but the consequences of their lies are constantly felt by honest folk never stop.
@Jim Hlavac: He’s “Hamburger Helper.” And just as nutricious.
@PitterPartyofOne: SING OUT LOUISE!
He is a hero now after raking in millions as a closet case in the GOP establishment at the expense of millions of LGBT lives???
@B: Pull your head out of your ass B; you can’t see reality in all that darkness.
There cannot be any true reconciliation of Mehlman being a good guy until he admits the truth about his Kapo past. Attempting to rewrite history and deny Mehlman’s complicity as an anti-gay rights homophobic bigot does not change the facts that he was an active participant in gay-bashing the LGBT community for personal political gain.
@B: “Oddly, you see a lot of angry people on QUEERTY wanting Mehlman’s head who are completely silent about Rove when it is Rove who probably did the real damage.”
Plenty of gay folks dislike Karl Rove and would be very pissed off if Out magazine named him as one of the Out 100. If Rove came out, he’d get the same reception that Ken Mehlman got. At to your other points, you’ve already been proven wrong in an earlier discussion about Mehlman.
@Jim Hlavac: Are you paying attention? A Democratic governor in New York just joined with the great majority of state Senate Democrats and four Republicans to enact marriage after it passed in the Democrat controlled Assembly by an overwhelming majority and you’re bitching about one Democrat who was never going to vote with us anyway? There are legitimate critiques that can be made about the Democrats, but your complaint comes across as childish whining. Get some perspective.
Fuck him, he got all the benefits of selling out gays. Many of the issues we have do deal with now are BECAUSE of what Melman did.
And then he has the balls to say ““I’m not doing press right now,””
Oh, I get it Ken, the GOP is out of the White House, and your guy Bush is gone, so NOW you want to start getting money as a gay rights activist….but HOW DARE those uppity gays ask you any questions?!
Again, here is an idea, I’ll forgive him when the “Southern Strategy” that he and Karl Rove put in place, demonizing gays, stops harming kids in those states. So lets say in a few decades?
No. 13 · Mike in Asheville made a fool of himself by writing, “@B: Pull your head out of your ass B; you can’t see reality in all that darkness. There cannot be any true reconciliation of Mehlman being a good guy until he admits the truth about his Kapo past. Attempting to rewrite history….”:
First, your grade-school language shows you really lack the ability to back up what you say, or even to show a minimal level of reading comprehension. I never said that Mehlman was a “good guy.” Rather, there is simply no credible evidence that he was behind an anti-gay campaign – it seems it was Rove who pushed that. He simply kept his head down. Furthermore, if you recall, I compared Mehlman to someone who saw a serious crime in progress and did nothing, not even making a phone call to the police. That’s not calling someone a “good guy” and if you think otherwise, your standards must be pretty low. Mehlman himself stated that he regretted not doing anything to stop the anti-gay nonsense.
As to your “rewrite history” claim (a lie, really), in a previous discussion I gave you a link to a New York Times article about Mehlman that stated he tended to avoid social issues. Someone came back with some book about Karl Rove, and when I checked an on-line copy of it, the relevant chapter mentioned Melhman twice. Once said that he was basically Rove’s lacky. The second time indicated that he had held a discussion with some guy associated with the Ohio “Issue One” anti-gay marriage campaign, but the only information the book referred to was some letter sent to Issue One supporters, which of course is obviously going to be exaggerated in favor of “Issue One” but had no details in any case. Most likely Mehlman simply told the Issue One people about Bush supporting a constitutional amendment (not mentioning that Bush’s support would go away after the election) in the hope that the Issue One people would make favorable statements about Bush in their campaign and that they would help get Bush supporters to go to the polls.
Finally, nobody proved any statements I made about Mehlman were wrong. How could they when I was mostly pointing out that documentation backing up a “public enemy number one” claim about him had been produced by the people who wanted his head? You guys can’t even produce evidence of any financial contributions from the Republican National Committee or the Bush campaign to the Issue One group. Where’s the documentation? You haven’t produced it.
No. 14 · C wrote, “@B: “Oddly, you see a lot of angry people on QUEERTY wanting Mehlman’s head who are completely silent about Rove when it is Rove who probably did the real damage.” Plenty of gay folks dislike Karl Rove and would be very pissed off if Out magazine named him as one of the Out 100.”
LOL. You had people suggesting a sex boycott for Mehlman while being completely silent about Rove, and this was well before “Out 100″ said anything about Mehlman.
Just to be clear, in No 13 above, I should have mentioned that “C” was the guy making the false “proven wrong” claim – simply an example of a guy declaring victory in face of all evidence to the contrary.
@B: Sorry deary, but the fool here is you blabbering your inane analysis of Mehlman’s Kapo tactics.
Even granting your grotesquely downplayed Mehlman as Rove’s lackey (not lacky), being a lackey who gay-bashes the LGBT community for political gain is, nonetheless, a gay-basher. How the fuck can you live with your self-loathing pussy soul so wanting to be a part of Mehlman’s world. I guess you make a perfect couple — vile in your self-hating view of being gay.
So, indeed, when someone is so full of shit, B, your head is way up your ass. Calling you out as an idiot makes you the fool, moron, not me.
“Rather, there is simply no credible evidence that he was behind an anti-gay campaign – it seems it was Rove who pushed that.”
Mehlman was Bush’s campaign manager AND the head of the RNC. To try to say that he had nothing to do with the campaign and the party direction is pure foolishness.
Every great social movement creates job opportunities for sell outs.
@B: “You had people suggesting a sex boycott for Mehlman while being completely silent about Rove, and this was well before “Out 100? said anything about Mehlman.”
You’re confusing me with someone else. I’ve never proposed a sex boycott.
When Mehlman’s inclusion in the Out 100 was first announced you played the same cards. You were presented with book entries, news articles, and other sources that unambiguously showed Mehlman was very much involved in enacting those ballot initiatives. Then, as now, you ignored those things and continued to assert that your position was correct. Arguing with you is like talking to an open window. There’s nothing there.
Out needs to sell magazines. What better than stirring up some controversy by putting Ken Mehlman in the top 100… pretty much what sister publication Advocate did when they had there “Gay is the New Black” cover story
it certainly got people talking
No. 19 · Mike in Asheville again made a fool of himself by saying, “@B: Sorry deary, but the fool here is you blabbering your inane analysis of Mehlman’s Kapo tactics. Even granting your grotesquely downplayed Mehlman as Rove’s lackey (not lacky), being a lackey who gay-bashes the LGBT community for political gain is, nonetheless, a gay-basher.”
The problem with your statement (aside from your childish language) is the circular argument. Nobody has produced any evidence of Mehlman running an anti-gay campaign of any sort. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_presidential_campaign,_2004 has a summary of the campaign, with a very short section on same-sex marriage and gay rights: “Bush has expressed support for ‘protecting the sanctity of marriage.’ He [Bush] endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage for all of the states as strictly heterosexual. Late in the 2004 campaign, however, he said that the states should be allowed to “enable people to you know, be able to have rights, like others,” though marriage would not be among them. Activists on both sides of the issue took this comment as endorsing civil unions.”
If all Mehlman did was to state that Bush officially was endorsing that amendment, I’d hardly call that gay bashing on Mehlman’s part – his failure (as I said) was in not pushing Bush to drop the issue altogether. If you want to claim otherwise, why don’t you provide some hard data – statistics on all the campaign literature, TV, and radio ads, showing the fraction of it that talked about gays at all.
I suspect what you’ll find is that the strategy, set by Rove, was to let others do the gay bashing while the Bush campaign pretty much stayed silent about it so as not to give the Democrats an issue (“if they go after one minority, they’ll go after others whenever it suits them.”), and Mehlman was involved primarily with the Bush campaign.
No. 20 · Cam wrote. “Mehlman was Bush’s campaign manager AND the head of the RNC. To try to say that he had nothing to do with the campaign and the party direction is pure foolishness.”
See No 24 (a reply to someone else). Otherwise, you are misrepresenting what I wrote. I said that there was no evidence that Mehlman pushed for an anti-gay campaign, not that he had nothing to do with the campaign. In fact, strategically it would have made sense to let the creeps at the state level push an anti-gay agenda with the Bush campaign staying clear of it, just to avoid giving the Democrats a campaign issue. Rove was apparently behind the anti-gay initiatives and he’s smart enough to know when to give the official campaign plausible deniability, which would suggest purposely keeping Mehlman away from any attempt to push that.
No. 22 · C wrote, “@B: “You had people suggesting a sex boycott for Mehlman while being completely silent about Rove, and this was well before “Out 100? said anything about Mehlman.” You’re confusing me with someone else. I’ve never proposed a sex boycott.”
Hey C, are you one of those plural persons (as in “The Royal We”)? I stated what people were suggesting, not you in particular, and the sex boycott was mentioned in other QUEERTY articles.
@B: As the great Bugs Bunny would say, “You’re a moroon!”
No. 27 · Mike in Asheville wrote, “@B: As the great Bugs Bunny ….”
Apparently Mike wants to convince everyone that he’s a child. It’s rather telling that he’ll hurl personal insults when simply asked for documentation to back up a statement – real documentation, not mere “opinion”.
It’s really not that hard. If you want to claim that some organization that Mehlman was running was explicitly gay bashing, then produce real evidence – a financial trail and an analysis of the organization’s campaign literature, TV-spots, etc. that show the “bashing.” The most I could find was a claim that Mehlman claimed Bush’s positions were not anti-gay or anti-anything. True? No, but it is hardly bashing – he tried to spin it as the Republicans wanting to support families. It’s not much different than Herman Cain’s “only four hours of sleep” excuse for his sorry performance about Libya.
In any case, if you can’t find any, then you should merely complain about Mehlman keeping quiet about what others were doing, or about Bush not being pushed to come out against an amendment to ban same-sex marriages or against various state measures doing the same thing.
@B: You so funny being soooo stuuuupid.
When you want to engage in legitimate debate — instead of hiding your head in the sand, as Chairman Mehlman’s ass kisser — I’ll stack my Berkeley years against any of yours.
No. 29 · Mike in Asheville again made a fool of himself by saying, “@B: You so funny being soooo stuuuupid. When you want to engage in legitimate debate — instead of hiding your head in the sand, as Chairman Mehlman’s ass kisser — I’ll stack my Berkeley years against any of yours.”
Where in Berkeley? The high school? Your behavior is pretty much that of someone whose development stopped in his mid teens. You really make yourself look bad when you post lie after lie, refuse to back up your statements with facts, and shout childish insults to cover it up. In No 28, I gave you a some reasonable criteria for showing that Mehlman is as bad as you claim. You’ve yet to produce the numbers. The most likely reason is that you can’t find any (or if you did, it disproved your argument).
Now, why don’t you just admit that you don’t have any evidence that Mehlman was gay-bashing or even running a gay-bashing campaign, as opposed to turning a blind eye to people who were?
So far, the most “damning thing I’ve found was a short excerpt from ” “The Architect: Karl Rove and the Dream of Absolute Power” with the claim, “Rove and the Bush campaign were involved, though, in spite of their public claims that they were keeping a distance from the issue [same-sex marriage] because it was state politics. Ken Mehman of the Republican National Committee contacted Blackwell directly to press the case in Ohio. ‘All things flow from there,’ Blackwell told the Cincinnati Enquirer. … ‘The president’s campaign has asked me to help with [Issue One] and I have agreed.”
The quote, however, is not credible. According to http://freepress.org/columns/display/3/2005/1248 (which seems to be a left-wing rag), Blackwell is quite an operator to the extent that nothing he says should be taken on face value.
So, back to square one … find something concrete that Mehlman actually did.
Was the carpet red because it was stained with the blood of a quarter million innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians? The crimes of Ken Mehlman go far, far beyond those he committed against the LGBTQ community. He should be held accountable for putting the war mongering, gas guzzling, planet and economy killing Chaney/Bush team in the White House. That OUT would honor him for his more recent support of marriage equality while disregarding the overall impact of his work is repugnant and highlights the dangers of “single-issue-ism”. He should be shunned by all humanity.
@B: Chairman Mehlman, says it all you simple minded twit.
o. 32 · Mike in Asheville once again acted like a child by writing, “@B: Chairman Mehlman, says it all you simple minded twit.”
LOL. Mike apparently lacks the maturity to hold a civil discussion and apparently doesn’t like the idea that you should not accuse someone of X without proof that they did X (as opposed to doing something else).
And that tells us a lot about Mike!
@B: No B, wrong again. You have worn out my patience with insipid denialism. If he — Mehlman — walks like a Chairman of Anti-gay Hate, if he talks like a Chairman of Anti-gay Hate, he is/was the Chairman of Anti-gay Hate. Deny it all you want but it does not change the fact that Mehlman was the Chairman of the Bush/Cheney Campaign and the RNC, and in both roles used anti-gay bigotry and politics to further the Bush/Cheney/GOP agenda.
NOTE TO KEN MEHLMAN: If its true you are getting no sex, contact Queerty poster B; apparently he is not disgusted with your Kapo politics, and is more than willing to kiss your ass. Bet he’ll go all kinky for you.
No. 35 · Mike in Asheville again acted like a teenage boy by writing, “NOTE TO KEN MEHLMAN: If its true you are getting no sex, contact Queerty poster B …”
Mike, do yourself a favor and grow up. Also cut out the lying. You know very well that I compared Mehlman to someone who witnessed a serious crime in progress and did nothing, not even so much as dialing 911 to report it.
Witnessing a crime and doing nothing about it is what the final episode of Seinfeld was all about; not being a good samaritan.
That is not the case of Mehlman; someone who works in conjunction, aids and abets, is a corroborator, an accomplice is completely different from not being a good samaritan. And Mehlman was more than that as Chairman; you know that but continue to deny it. Why, Et tu, B?
That you are so self-loathing that you justify and back Mehlman’s kapo anti-gay history tells me that you too are guilty of anti-gay activities and you now want to be absolved too. Chicken shits like Mehlman will always be chicken shits until he acknowledges and OWNS his duplicitous past. Same goes for you, Kapo B.
No. 37 · Mike in Asheville lied some more, reducing himself to character assassination and trash talk, by saying (among other nonsense), “That you are so self-loathing that you justify and back Mehlman’s kapo anti-gay history tells me that you too are guilty of anti-gay activities and you now want to be absolved too.”
Sounds like a case of projection – Mike, after all, seems to be doing all of the loathing!
What Mike cannot understand (and this is an indication of a lack of integrity on his part), is that some of us simply put a premium on being factually correct. I gave
Mike plenty of opportunity to show that Mehlman in fact did something “anti-gay”, as opposed to just remaining silent when he could have done something to help, and suggested the sort of documentation that would constitute proof. Mike has not been able to produce one shred of credible evidence, just wild assertions, so rather than admit that he can’t back up his claims, he starts making baseless accusations about others.
Then he gets it all wrong by saying, “Witnessing a crime and doing nothing about it is what the final episode of Seinfeld was all about; not being a good samaritan.” No Mike, that episode is not about “not being a good Samaritan.” It had them dragged into court for doing absolutely nothing when they witnessed a crime. Calling 911 doesn’t make you a “good Samaritan” — the original story was about a guy who helped someone who was seriously injured and lying on the road, and put out a fair bit of effort and expense to do that, in spite of both being in different ethnic groups that generally despised each other.
Even funnier, Mike and people like him are actually damaging efforts for gay rights. Pouncing on Mehlman like he and the others are will simply convince closeted gays who were in a position to get some inside information about anti-gay organizations from coming out and spilling the beans. Getting that inside information and knowing how these organizations work internally can be useful in efforts to defeat them, and you simply aren’t going to get that if you punish people who finally want to give it to you – they’ll figure the risk isn’t worth it.
@B: I guess I should have remembered my Shakespeare: “I would challenge to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed!”
Rant all you want B, ignore the obvious and deny the reality — goose-step with Mehlman. You are too delusional lost in your brainless head poisoned by some nasty Kool-Aid brew. End of story.
No. 39 · Mike in Asheville wrote, “@B: I guess I should have remembered my Shakespeare ….”
You might impress people a bit more if you were less into funny, out of context, quotes and more into knowing how to base conclusions on actual data, not figments of your imagination.
It’s really hilarious. You share a lot with the religious right wing and NOM – both of whom base their “statements of fact” on completely uninformed opinion. You know, like the claim that the earth is only a few thousand years old in spite of gobs of evidence to the contrary or the claim that sexual orientation is a choice.
Maybe, if she gets tired of her husband or trying to pronounce his name, you can go out on a date with Maggie Gallagher. You’d make a cute couple as you have so much in common (being factually challenged, even though it is about different facts).
But cheer up. It gets better. Or does it?
Please log in to add your comment.
Need an account? Register It's free and easy.
PHOTOS: Broadway Gets Into Winter Burlesque With Calendar Girl
PHOTOS: Prohibition Returns to NYC With the Roaring New Twenty Something Party
PHOTOS: The Sundance Queer Preview — 2014 Edition
Long, Loose and Colorful: Fashion Trends For 2014
Most Talked About Model Interviews Of 2013