Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

McCain Staffer Outed To Show Candidate’s “Hypocrisy”


John McCain and his campaign are about to be getting all sorts of gay press.

Blogger Mike Rogers appeared on Michelangelo Signorile’s radio show today to reveal that Mark Buse, Senator McCain’s chief-of-staff, goes for the guys.

Why is this a big deal? Well, first and foremost, McCain’s running with ardently anti-gay Sarah Palin, a woman who scares us more than killer drag queens from outer space.

Also, there’s McCain kissing social conservative butt in exchange for electoral love.

Signorile first heard about Buse’s homosexuality from an ex-lover of the forty-four year olds, a story Signorile confirmed with a number of sources. Mike Rogers also found his own tipsters to dish the dirt.

Though Buse has never denied being gay and neither men seem interested in playing “gotcha” with the staffer, they say his history with McCain reveals the Republican presidential candidate’s own “hypocrisy.”

Signorile writes:

Today, Buse, 44, is one of the closest and most loyal men to Senator John McCain. He knows McCain’s family “intimately,” says Davis, and has spent much time with Cindy McCain. When Buse was in his early 20s, when Brian Davis met him, Buse worked as an intern for McCain, back when McCain was a House member. Twenty years later Buse has risen to the highest position in McCain’s Senate office. During those two decades he left McCain for a while to become an influential K Street lobbyist for Exxon Mobil, AT&T Wireless and other multinational corporations, emerging as someone very valuable to those companies – and to John McCain — after he returned to McCain’s Senate office.

But though some in the media have focused on Buse’s role as a lobbyist, none have looked at another increasingly relevant detail: Mark Buse’s sexual orientation. And yet, it’s a detail that reveals hypocrisy about John McCain that is as clear as that of his reputation to take on the corporate interests while he has registered lobbyists on his staff and campaign.

John McCain is opposed to every single gay rights measure of recent years –- from a hate crimes bill, to an anti-discrimination bill to an attempt to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military –- and is publicly on record supporting a ballot measure in California this November to strip gays and lesbians there of their legally-won right to marry in that state. If that isn’t enough to make it relevant to report on his 20-year-relationship with a close aide and chief of staff who is gay, the fact that Sarah Palin is now on the ticket — garnering support for McCain from previously reticent antigay leaders like James Dobson of Focus on the Family –- surely does.

Mark Buse’s sexual orientation and his relationship with McCain certainly are relevant facts in light of Palin’s positions, beliefs, past political career and silence on the issues right now. And John McCain is the person responsible for making them relevant by choosing Sarah Palin as a running mate.

McCain did make these issues more relevant by picking Palin, but he was actively courting the frothing homophobic masses long before the Governor came into the picture. We wish we could say we’re surprised or outraged by this Buse business, but most of all it just makes us sad.

Signorile does make a very valid point, however, when describing what Buse’s ex-boyfriend describes as the staffer’s disappointment in McCain’s dealings with right wing fundamentalists:

Has Mark Buse been assured by John McCain that his bowing to religious conservatives is all just politics, that he’s just stringing along the fundies, and that he wouldn’t sell him and his kind to the far right as president? If that is the case, what would the Christian right think about that now and don’t they have a right to know?

And, if true, how would Buse and certainly McCain then explain the choice of Palin, beyond admitting that it is simply a reckless gamble, since it’s quite possible she could become president and bring the ideologues into the White House? Is there some other plan for how do deal with Palin?

Whatever the Palin plan may have been, this story, if it gains traction, could complicate things for McCain, Palin and especially Buse.

By:           Andrew Belonksy
On:           Sep 22, 2008
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

  • 77 Comments
    • Matt
      Matt

      I know they are pointing to the hypocrisy here but I really have a problem with a gay man purposely outing another gay man. It just bugs me.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • abelincoln
      abelincoln

      As the right wing religious nut jobs say: hate the sin not the sinner. (Which is just a bullshit thing to say to begin with).

      I’m no fan of the Repubs, McCain and certainly not Palin but this whole thing sounds like a red herring. Unless McCain and/or Palin are sleeping with this guy I don’t see an issue nor should it become one for the country as a whole. I can see why we might take exception to it but it’s not the biggest problem this country is facing today.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 3:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hippybear
      hippybear

      I believe that it is the hypocracy which leads to the outing. Without the former, the latter hardly ever happens.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 3:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kurt
      kurt

      Certainly since McCain dumpted his first wife for Mrs.#2, the fundies can’t have too much of a problem here.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 3:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Smith
      John Smith

      Senator McCain is far more socially liberal in private than he is as a Republican politician running for office. He is gay-friendly, but he’s in the closet about it. This is well known among gay Republicans. All politicians lie to win elections (including Mr. Obama). The trick is to figure out what they’re really thinking and what they’ll really do once they’re elected, when they can afford to break campaign promises.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 3:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WickedGayBlog.com
      WickedGayBlog.com

      I really hate when people get outed. That is such a personal decision.

      This does not make McCain look bad, it just makes those who outed him look bad!

      Dave, WGB

      Sep 22, 2008 at 3:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kelly
      kelly

      …and how does it make those who hide in shame look?

      Sep 22, 2008 at 4:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      Kelly, your implicit assumption that it is a negative thing to be in the closet shows that your perspective is as narrow-minded as the people who are hoping this small issue becomes a major political point. Some queer people don’t feel comfortable being outed (much less on a national level and on the internet) because they weigh the benefits of coming out versus the negative effects, and decide to stay in. It’s ultimately his choice.

      I do agree with you that if someone is hiding in shame, then outing them may be beneficial (unless, of course, they live in an extremely intolerant area–which many gays do). However, I think most queer people, especially men, purposely don’t out themselves because they have made a choice against a society which doesn’t give them much leeway.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 4:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      Buse will be the FIRST outed

      The way Andrew Sullivan detests Palin, anyone Andrew knows is queer should be SWEATING, and you know it’ll never be Andrew listed as the source of the story…it NEVER IS, is it repigs?

      Sep 22, 2008 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      Who wants to live their lives in a small room with NO SELF RESPECT?

      we are BETTER than that

      Sep 22, 2008 at 4:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CPT_Doom
      CPT_Doom

      It is only “outing” when one is in the closet. When one lives openly with one’s partner, goes out socially with one’s partner, trolls for three-ways with one’s partner on social networking sites and hosts parties the devolve into basically orgies, one is not in the closet. What Signorile and Rogers have done is speak the truth.

      When I was in the closet, I did not date other men, did not go to gay bars, did not post my picture on social networking sites and state that I was gay. That was being in the closet.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 4:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      any queer working to elect PRAY-AWAY-THE-GAY Palin…gird your loins, it’s gonna be a BUMPY RIDE.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 4:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dale
      Dale

      When McCain responds: “Well I don’t speak about my staff’s private lives” THERE NEED TO BE IMMEDIATE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.

      Q: Senator, how specifically is the relationship you’ve had with either of your wives more deserving of the “sanctity of marriage” than your Chief of Staff and his spouse?

      Q: Senator, why should your Chief of Staff be unqualified as an adoptive parent while you and either of your wives are not?

      Q: Senator, would you knowingly retain a staff member whom you knew to not only be an alcoholic, a drug abuser, or a swinger – but actually embraced that lifestyle as normal and healthy? Would such a person reflect the values and character of the McCain campaign?

      Sep 22, 2008 at 4:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ston
      Ston

      All of you people bitching about them outing this guy are missing two major points.

      1. Why would you object to the outing of somebody working to further the career of somebody hurting the gay cause (McCain has appeared in ads in AZ supporting a state law banning gay marraige, and down’t not believe gays should adopt)

      2. Mark Buse is not in the closet, you cannot out somebody who is not in. His family, friends, and collegues all know his sexuality. Therefore there has been no “Outing”

      Sep 22, 2008 at 4:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kelly
      kelly

      Thank you, Mark.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 4:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JJJJ
      JJJJ

      All it proves is that McCain will hire anyone regardless of his sexuality. No big story here.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 4:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Ston – Amen to #1. He is not a private figure when he works on a political campaign.

      Not sure about what your saying in #2. If it was so well known, how did it wait until now to surface?

      Sep 22, 2008 at 4:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wayne
      Wayne

      McCain’s top strategy advisor recently met with the Log Cabin Republicans and talked openly of his sister who is gay, and how he wants gay people to be an active part of the McCain campaign. Attendees called the meeting “historic”. And if McCain doesn’t have a problem with having a chief of staff that is gay, we shouldn’t have a problem with it either. Especially when Obama’s own “Faith Tour” is being promoted by an anti-gay marriage pro Prop 8 bigot.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 5:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JJJJ
      JJJJ

      I agree with Wayne. I’m still leaning towards voting for Obama (must see the debates first) but it’s not because Obama will be any better or worse on the gay issue. (I believe economy and national security will ultimately decide the election).

      Sep 22, 2008 at 5:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James
      James

      Another McCain hypocrisy. And more proof that the Log Cabin “Club” is nothing more than hypocritical gay men who worry more about their pocketbooks than human rights.

      If it isn’t an issue, I’m sure that Focus on the Family won’t have a problem with knowing this fact.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 5:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      He’s a good choice.

      But the same could be said of all those who support a bigot pandering, pigheaded opponent of same sex marriage like Obama. Or who ignores the fact that he won’t even allow our name to be mentioned in his platform lest it frighten the bigots he’s wooing.

      It could be said of anyone in the same party with Barney Frank, who gutted ENDA, or Pelosi and Reid who dumped the Matthew Shepard hate Crimes act in the garbage.

      It could also be said of anyone who votes for a party that overwhelmingly voted for DOMA and DADT and refuses to repeal them.

      I’m referring to Democrats. The LCR types have no monopoly on hypocrisy and lack of common sense. The Democrats have moved so far to the right on so many questions that they now have two parties to play with.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 6:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rob Moore
      Rob Moore

      In comment #5, John Smith appears to defend McCain by saying he far more liberal in his private dealings with gay people than he is in public. To me that is hardly relevant. If he is constrained in his public positions by his desire to be liked by the fundamentalists, how will his behaviour be different if he is elected? He will continue to need the support of the bigots to have the power he craves, and he will continue to do their bidding. Think back to the dust-up over Bushwhacko’s desire to allow torture of prisoners. McCain had stated over and over his opposition to torture, until it came time for a vote. Without apparent pangs of conscience, he voted in support of the bill giving Bush what he wanted then claimed the bill was a good compromise. I wasn’t clear on what sort of compromise occurred. He will screw us over the same way he did his first wife and children.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 6:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Simon
      Simon

      I’m utterly dumfounded by suggestions that the election results will have no effect on queer rights, or that, if elected, McCain won’t dance with the snake-handlers whut brung him. Yeah, the Dems are often a disappointment, but can someone point to a single queer-rights triumph spearheaded by the GOP against Dem opposition? No, Frank shouldn’t have gutted ENDA, but when it came to the House, SIX TIMES as many Democrats as Repubs voted for it, and you can be sure not one of the 159 GOPers in opposition voted no because it omitted trans rights. Hey, let’s just imagine a Court made up entirely of Scalia clones. Recriminalizing sodomy, anyone? Maybe Buse isn’t just a careerist quisling, but…

      Sep 22, 2008 at 7:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Simon, of course the election will impact us, but whether Obama or McCain wins, we lose.

      As for the courts, they respond to power, not ideology. The federal Supremes who cut down sodomy laws and the California and Massachusetts Supremes who voted for same sex marriage all had Republican majorities who responding to our movement and in the case of Lawrence to embarrassment over the US being seen as a cult infested backwater.

      On all the key questions, the war, the collapse of the economy and pandering to bigots there are no substantive differences between the parties.
      That’s why Obama has a long standing strategy of pandering to bigots and if they elect him they’ll own him.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 7:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dale
      Dale

      If an African-American man had been David Duke’s Chief of Staff for 20 years, could he reasonably expect the media to keep that a secret because it’s just a “private” issue?

      Sep 22, 2008 at 7:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Wake up Simon.

      The fact that any Democrats voted for the Frank/Republican gutted version of ENDA is an indictment of the those bigot pandering opportunists, not someing to celebrate.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 7:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tristan
      tristan

      Why should gay people be expected to protect the reputation of someone who is actively working against the interest of gay people? living in the closet is harmful to other gays since closet cases refuse to represent. This guy is dangerous to gay people. Fuck his anonymity. Those who are defending him are chickenshit cowards.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 11:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tristan
      tristan

      jjjj:
      If you haven’t figured it out by now you’re not paying attention. You’re lying about being undecided. You’re just not informed and are afraid to reveal your ignorance.

      Sep 22, 2008 at 11:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      Wait a minute — who is to say he was closeted?

      Just because Mike Rogers is engaging in partisan self-styled outing campaigns doesn’t mean the individuals he’s “outing” aren’t already out of the closet at work and in their everyday lives.

      What I find hilarious is the implication that Rogers is doing this out of any motivation other than political partisan attacks for his party. He hasn’t outed Barbara Mikulski, for instance, despite her vote on DOMA.

      Why should gay people be expected to protect the reputation of someone who is actively working against the interest of gay people?

      By that standard, every closeted Democrat should be outed as well.

      Overall, I couldn’t care less about the outings as a “moral” thing, since closetedness is so 1975. But the glee with which this is being done by certain partisan hypocrites only underscores that a great deal of their motivation isn’t “stopping anti-gay activities,” but rather just plain old hatred for those with whom they disagree.

      Fortunately, society is advancing to the point where old nasty trolls like Rogers, with their outing campaigns, will be irrelevant. And thank Goddess for that!

      Sep 23, 2008 at 12:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      I’m utterly dumfounded by suggestions that the election results will have no effect on queer rights, or that, if elected, McCain won’t dance with the snake-handlers whut brung him.

      Yet you’re completely willing to believe that Obama won’t dance with the snake-handlers whut brung him, like McClurkin, Meeks, Wright, Kmeick, Pfleger, and a whole host of other people who don’t like The Gays that much.

      That belief would be filed under two separate entries:

      1) Self-Deception;

      2) Double Standards.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 12:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JJJJ
      JJJJ

      Brian Miller : You’re right. If these are to be the standards, then every gay working for the equally homophobic Democrats should be outed loudly all over the place as well.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 4:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      Simply put, stripped of all that lofty rhetorical nonsense, America is an old-fashioned Medieval empire with three estates. The First Estate consists largely of the corporate elite (and those associated with them, such as celebrities and sports stars). The Second Estate is the clergy. The Third Estate are made up of those invested in the military-industrial complex.

      The power struggle is between these estates. We, the lowly peasants, are merely called upon to ratify their decisions by acclamation. And every few years during election season, we might be called upon to “choose” between their choices for ruler. I put choose in scare quotes because while these elections are free, they aren’t particularly fair. In fact, they’re about as fair as the election of a new Doge in Venice (or Grand Duke in Tuscany).

      The estates have already vetted and selected acceptable candidates through the apparatus of the two party system. While the illusion of popular support and “choice” is maintained, somebody in the ogliarchy will win no matter what we decide. So, it is merely a matter of picking one’s poison.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 4:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruce
      Bruce

      This will NOT hurt McCain! This ONLY destroys the career and personal integrity and privacy of a man FEW know anything about. HOW DARE you set yourself up as GOD and judge and OUT someone??? Shame on you! You’re pathetic! EVERYONE deserves the right to privacy. And he definitely does NOT deserve an award alongside Ray Cohn!

      Sep 23, 2008 at 11:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Bruce – you may be right about not huring McCain but I can’t disagree with you more about privacy. When someone is hiding who they are and working in a PUBLIC job such as for a Mayor, Senator or whoever, they forfeit their right to privacy. This is no different than if a staff member clubbed seals (legal) or engaged in any other negative behavior. And why for heaven’s sake is it “private” anyway? If he was married, reporters may choose to report on his wife and kids? The fact there may be negative consequences should make you at least RECONSIDER your opinion! What do those negative consequences say about what it means to be Gay in America?

      Sep 23, 2008 at 12:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mowan
      Mowan

      I agree with Jaroslaw. When Buse took the job to work for and campain for man who is making decisions on how people live their lived thats when their privacy is no more. How can we trust them to make the right choices on our lived if we do not know how they live. I would love to see the interview with people asking him those questions.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 2:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Thanks Mowan, I think you said it better than I did! That is what I was driving at!

      Sep 23, 2008 at 2:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chadnnocal
      chadnnocal

      Sorry folks, alls fair in war and politics and we are deep in both.

      I can’t wait till we hear about more GOP queers. If you support the hate-filled Politicians that would deny GLBT Americans basic human rights, you must expect that all skeletons in your closet will be revealed.

      Come out come out where ever you are…

      Sep 23, 2008 at 3:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wayne
      Wayne

      All this anger at McCain, but no one has a problem with Obama having yet another anti-gay bigot out there shilling for him on his “Faith Tour”?

      Sep 23, 2008 at 4:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mowan
      Mowan

      Wayne – Because the few anti-gay occurences against Obama/Biden and the DNC are nothing compared to what McCain/Palin and the RNC shell out for anti-gay cause. For example, the California ban. When gay marriage was annouced Obama stated that he does not belive in gay marriage but will not stand in its way and applauded CA for its monumental event and said that he agreed with leaving that up to the states to make that choice. On the other hand, McCain just stated that he did not agree with any of it. So its a choice on someone who tell you they are not going to stop gay marriage although you barely trust them or someone else who says that No gay marriage at all. I dont trust Obama all the way but i know what i will get from McCain on that topic and i dont like it.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wayne
      Wayne

      Mowan,

      This is exactly what I’m talking about. Obama favors a “seperate but equal” civil-union instead of full marriage equality.Couples in NJ are already finding that the companies that issue benefits like insurance, etc. are not recognising thier civil unions as marriages, and are denying benefits. And you act like Obama’s position is somehow far and away superior to McCains position on the issue. When in fact there is very little light of day between the two. But McCain is chastised for having a gay chief of staff, but Obama gets off the hook for having a 2nd (lets not forget Donnie McClurkin) bigot shilling for him on yet another demeaning tour to pander to religious bigots? I just don’t see it.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 5:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      Let’s ignore the fact that both the McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden tickets are homophobic bigots.

      It’s obvious that the various Democrats who are “outing” their opponents are hoping that those opponents get fired and have a horrible time due to their sexual orientation.

      In other words, they’re leveraging homophobia to promote their political agenda. Which is no different than the right-wingers doing the same thing through stunts like Proposition 8.

      Mike Rogers has been quite adept at using homophobic stereotypes (including putting pictures of various people he “outs” that are modified to have them wearing makeup). The entire stunt is an effort to leverage homophobic bigotry to achieve a Democratic Party political victory.

      Whenever homophobia is promoted, all gay people suffer. Democrats are especially hypocritical in their promotion of homophobic hatred this election season — they’re going after Nader, Barr, and McCain for perceived failings on gay issues while they run a DOMA-supportive, anti-gay-military-policy-supportive ticket AND stir up homophobia to get their opponents fired.

      Anybody who believes the Democratic Party is, by default, “supporting gay rights” is deluded. One need only look at the present situation, and other situations (like Hitchcock’s poor treatment by the DNC’s fundamentalist chief of staff) to see this is the case.

      If Democrats want to stir up and leverage homophobia to achieve their political ambitions, that’s obviously their choice. They shouldn’t complain, however, when objective non-partisans don’t take their selective histrionics seriously.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 7:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      I note that in another thread, “Jaroslaw” accused me of lying about my background — ironic when it’s well documented.

      I post using my real name, and it’s especially hypocritical that a partisan hypocrite like himself shows such prurient interest in the sexual proclivities of others — advancing the politics of personal destruction — while hiding behind a psuedonym himself.

      Doubly ironic is the fact that Mike Rogers doesn’t have to worry about someone outing him for his sexual proclivities. Having seen numerous photos of the man, I doubt anybody is desperate enough (or blind and deaf enough) to hit that. Ick.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 7:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruce
      Bruce

      Brian, Thanks for speaking the TRUTH!!! I, for one, appreciate your honest and very knowledgeable remarks! So many people believe the Democratic Party really CARES about them. Homophobia is definitely bipartisan; supported and promoted everyday by both Republicans & Democrats! Bravo, My man!!!

      Sep 23, 2008 at 7:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Simon
      Simon

      Brian Miller: That belief would be filed under two separate entries:
      1) Self-Deception;
      2) Double Standards.

      Brian, Bill, and Wayne,

      Sure, in a perfect world, Obama wouldn’t waffle on queer issues. And yes, the Dems can be spineless, and Clinton’s support of DOMA and Don’t Ask was shameful. But this whole “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the parties” thing is one of two things:
      1) Self-deception or
      2) Unrealistic ideological purity

      Sure, the ENDA debacle was crappy. But, as much as I support trans rights, are we supposed to celebrate those who voted against employment rights for queers? Sorry, I’m just not that absolutist. And yes, Frank was wrong on principle, but if you, Bill, identify the gutted ENDA as partly “Repubican,’ would you care to explain why it was STILL overwhelmingly opposed by GOP congresspeople? And do you think that, absent overwhelming GOP opposition to ANY version of the bill, Frank would have stripped ENDA of trans protections? Unfortunately, politics is the art of the possible. Live with it.

      And let’s think of the Supreme Court, shall we? Let’s think of such sterling pro-queer appointments as Scalia and Alito, both of whom McCain held up as models. Whoopee!

      Hell, let’s just think of recent history. If Gore had been elected, do you think the last eight years would have been essentially identical to the Bush years?

      There actually are a bunch of progressive, proqueer Democrats out there, which is more than you can say for the Republicans. A lot.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 7:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      in a perfect world, Obama wouldn’t waffle on queer issues. And yes, the Dems can be spineless, and Clinton’s support of DOMA and Don’t Ask was shameful.

      Great.

      So since it’s unrealistic to expect that a major party will cease their anti-gay activities, Democrats who criticize Republicans over GOP anti-gay activities are being hypocrites, right?

      Oops.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 7:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      And Republicans who choose to support the GOP over economic issues, despite the GOP’s anti-gay record, are no worse than Democrats who choose to support the Democrats over economic issues despite the Dems’ anti-gay record.

      Right?

      Ouch.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 7:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Simon
      Simon

      “Let’s ignore the fact that both the McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden tickets are homophobic bigots.”

      Wow. I’m certainly not rabidly pro-Obama, and he sure could be stronger on issues like DADT. (Which he opposed when he ran for the Senate, but is now equivocating on.) But to identify him as a “homophobic bigot” because he’s insufficiently proqueer for some activists’ agenda? Too reminiscent of the sectarian quarrels of the left that gave birth to the original use of the phrase “politically correct.”

      Disappointing? Yes. Absolutely. Our bigoted enemy? Prove it.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 8:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      I don’t have to prove that he’s an “enemy.” That’s your decision to make.

      Personally, I don’t buy the argument that a quisling, mendacious sell-out like the Obama/Biden ticket, who enabled the DOMA and DADT outrages, is “preferable” to the Republicans who did the same thing.

      You can choose to sell yourself for $1 and claim it’s still much higher than the GOP’s asking price of 50 cents. I’d simply argue that you’re undervaluing yourself and other LGBT individuals.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 8:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tristan
      tristan

      Brian Miller:
      You call rogers an old troll and mock him by saying noone would “Hit it.” This does nothing for your position. (unless you seriously consider being older and someone you wouldn’t “hit” as less gay than you, or less entitled to an opinion or that your idea of who is “hit” worthy is somehow meaningful or in any way germane to this issue.) Are you saying that commenters to this site need to meet your requirements in the area of youthfulness and looks, in order to be taken seriously?
      Pardon me, but that’s sort of a fascist point of view and pardon me again if I say you’re full of shit and you really should go fuck yourself. Post a picture if you’re so hot. Let’s see what you got.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 9:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Simon demands an answer!

      “Our bigoted enemy? Prove it.”

      Simon’s line of questioning displays more than a little confusion. Very few politicians or political parties are going to trumpet their bigotry: his framing of the question is absurd on the face of it. The question is not one of personal bigotry, although both Obama and McCain display plenty of that in their porcine opposition to same sex marriage.

      Rather it’s a political question, a question of power and policy. Both candidates eat like pigs and from the same trough: they both pander to bigots. The fight for the evangelical swine vote is swinging back and forth and that’s a signal reversal of Roves traditional lock on that segment. The outcome of the McCain/Obama fight for bigot votes will be clear November 5th, but whoever wins is going to be owned by the bigots, not by us.

      The strategy of pandering leads inevitably to the policy of bigotry and the proof is all around us. It was the Democrats, not the Republicans who refused to repeal Clintons DADT and DOMA. It was the Democrats, not the Republicans who gutted ENDA and tossed it and the rest of our agenda in the garbage. The DNC is run by bigots just as bad as those in the RNC. In fact their former GLBT outreach director is suing them for homophobic personnel policies. And he’ll win bigtime. If the Republicans are open about their mean-spirited bigotry then at least they’re honest and we know where they stand. And by his actions we know where Obama stands because he flat out refuses to allow any mention of us or our names in his platform.

      If you want to talk about real bigotry consider this: the Republicans were just along for the ride during the last two years as the Democratic bus ran us over, backed up and then did it again. And again. DOMA, DADT. ENDA, hate crimes… the list goes on and on.

      Is it ‘politically correct’ for you to suggest that we support our enemies, McCain and Obama? Simon, is it sectarian to point out bigotry when the proof for it is overwhelming? Or is it a closeted delusion to deny that both parties are sties mired in bigotry.

      Should we believe what Obama or McCain say or base our judgment on what they do? Do we buy into their election year ‘promises’ or do we do what’s best for our communities, which is to build a massive militant GLBT left to force our agenda on Congress, the White House and the courts, no matter which party is in power?

      Sep 23, 2008 at 9:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Simon
      Simon

      OK, I really have stuff to do, and can’t engage in extended debate. But Bill, if you’re exercised over DOMA, you are aware that Obama voted against it, has publicly called it “abhorrent,” and supported its full repeal, right? And that he’s called for repeal of DADT? That he’s calling or passage of the Shepard hate crimes act? One might say these are all hollow promises, and maybe you’re right. But to call him a homophobe because he didn’t cut loose a gospel singer from a campaign stop and because he supports domestic partnership but not same-sex marriage? That’s quite a stretch. I – no doubt like you – pretty much look askance at HRC, but it may be germane to note they gave Obama an 89% on his voting record, and that the NGLTF found his sole negative was in opposing same-sex marriage, while McCain’s ony plus was opposing the marriage amendment.

      Just for the record, I support the idea of a massive militant queer left. I was a gay activist way back in the early 70s, was in ACT UP, yadda yadda yadda. But there’s an election coming up in two months, and if you’re cynical about Obama’s commitment, I’m equally doubtful that the massive queer left you dream of is going to spring forth fully formed from the ashes of Will and Grace.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 11:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Simon
      Simon

      Whoops…forgot to mention, since ENDA is such a sore point, that Obama publicly supports a gender-inclusive ENDA. If he’s merely pandering to the evangelicals, that’s a weird step to take.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 11:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Simon
      Simon

      Bill: “And by his actions we know where Obama stands because he flat out refuses to allow any mention of us or our names in his platform.”

      One other thing…I was surprised by that statement, so I went over to his site…under “People” is an LGBT section, complete with a downladable position paper that says most – though not all – the right things. And on his official site is this statement:

      “While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”

      So perhaps, Bill, you should fact-check more carefully, hmm?

      Sep 23, 2008 at 11:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Simon, when you say “OK, I really have stuff to do, and can’t engage in extended debate.” you’re really just saying that you’re up shit creek without a paddle.
      Nothing you’ve said refutes the massively documented fact that the Democratic Party has lied to us for decades, accepted our money and votes and given us DOMA, DADT, a worthless feeble ENDA and no hate crimes legislation in return.

      So perhaps, Bill, you should fact-check more carefully, hmm?

      I do check my facts, we are not mentioned in the Democratic Party platform on Obama’s instructions. Read the platform, not some insipid fundraising doggerel to collect money to pay the legal defenses of the ordained pentecostal anti-LGBT bigot who runs the DNC. There’s been a huge discussion about our exclusion on this and a dozen other blogs and in the MSM for the last month or so. Google it and check you own facts before shooting off your mouth about issues you know nothing about, which seems to be politics in general. Gosh I forgot, you’re too busy to look up facts, so I found a few of the hundreds of references to it. Read ‘em and weep, Simon.

      http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/new-draft-democ.html

      http://www.queerty.com/dems-making-gay-platform-changes-20080811/

      http://www.gaywired.com/Article.cfm?Section=70&ID=19875

      http://www.365gay.com/news/democratic-platform-gay-positive-without-saying-gay/

      Where we are backhandedly mentioned is in regard to DADT, which means that Obama wants the winner in November to have a fresh supply of cannon fodder. That may seem like progress to you but I lost too many buddies and a lover in Vietnam to have anything but contempt for Obama and his war party and no patience at all for people who vote for more of our brothers and sisters being sent to kill and be killed in the Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and probably in Iran. We should fight to end the bigotry of Clintons DADT but urge GLBT folks to stay out of that genocidal war.

      Your party, like the Republican Party, is a cesspool of bigotry. Your vote will be a wasted vote, a vote for a party which by its actions has proven itself to be an enemy of our communities. The Democrats are just Republicans in drag, they both pander to bigots, they both plan to extend and expand the genocidal war to steal Middle East oil and they’re equally responsible for the economic crisis the looming over the country.

      Simon wants us to vote for the lesser bigot, the lesser warmonger, and the lesser Wall Street pet. What a waste of votes. The next president will be Nixon redux, and I expect that’ll be Obama. The only thing that can defeat him is McCain’s appeal to racists, a tactic first used by the Clintons in the primaries.

      If he wins watch for the new tent cities named Obamavilles instead of Hoovervilles. Listen for “Hey, hey, O BA Ma, how many kids did you kill today?”

      Etc.

      Obama is a right wing hustler who can be counted on to disappoint those hoodwinked into supporting him. It’ll be a real education for the GLBT communities, working people and the antiwar movement.

      An Obama presidency will be harder to politically dismantle than a McCain presidency, but it’ll be worth it because the effects will be so much more intense and have a marked destabilizing for the reactionary two party system that Simon is so uniformed about.

      Vote for the union led and financed US Labor Party. If not vote for socialist or communist candidates as a protest or join the scores of millions who sit it out because they’re smart enough to refuse to vote for the lesser bigot, the lesser warmonger or the lesser evil.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 1:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      unless you seriously consider being older and someone you wouldn’t “hit” as less gay than you, or less entitled to an opinion or that your idea of who is “hit” worthy is somehow meaningful or in any way germane to this issue.

      Ahhhh, now you’re picking up the little ironic thread in my post.

      Rogers (and his defenders) consider those who politically disagree with them to be “less gay” than they are, less entitled to an opinion, and that those who disagree with them lack an opinion that is meaningful or germane.

      Notably, I’m just posting some tongue-in-cheek commentary on a web forum, and you appear a bit ruffled, perhaps even angered, by it.

      In contrast, Rogers and his supporters are trying to destroy the careers and severely disrupt the lives of those who disagree with them politically.

      Which is truly the more “capital offense?”

      And again, why the double standard?

      Are you truly willing to be thoughtful about it?

      Or is your position closer to Rogers’ “he’s with the other side and must be destroyed through leveraging homophobia” logic?

      And if you’re truly in that dark, dark place, doesn’t that make you identical to the Republicans you claim to abhor? Haven’t you become them?

      Difficult concepts to consider, yes, but they must be considered.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 2:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      if you’re exercised over DOMA, you are aware that Obama voted against it,

      Lie. Obama was not in the Senate in 1996, when the DOMA was passed.

      has publicly called it “abhorrent,”

      Irrelevant. Pretty speeches aren’t policy.

      and supported its full repeal

      Lie. Obama has consistently refused to meet with representatives of an effort to repeal DOMA through legislation, and has flat-out refused to co-sponsor companion legislation to do this in the Senate.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 2:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      Post a picture if you’re so hot.

      PS — as a public figure, my picture is available.

      PPS — Post under your real name if you’re so confident in your positions. :)

      Sep 24, 2008 at 2:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greybat
      greybat

      I notice Mark Buse (remember him?) also worked as a lobbyist for Exxon-Mobile, the war-profiteers that canceled domestic partners benefits for their Gay and lesbian employees.
      Now he’s working for McCain.
      We can’t really undermine his career, since the sort of people he works for are as hypocritical and conscienceless as he is.
      So instead, when someone calling himself “John” invites you to a three-way, just say “John who?”
      That’ll show them…

      Sep 24, 2008 at 3:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Simon
      Simon

      “Lie. Obama was not in the Senate in 1996, when the DOMA was passed.”

      My bad. That is, of course, the truth, and if I weren’t so preoccupied, I would have caught that. Sorry.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 3:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wayne
      Wayne

      One last question, if Obama is really so concerned about showing tolerence – which is the reason Obama uses for haveing anti-gay bigots shilling for him on his Faith Tours- then why is it that he only has gay hating bigots on his tolerence team? Why doesn’t Obama ever invite some KKK members to the party? It’s all about diversity, right?

      Sep 24, 2008 at 6:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Brian Miller – using your real name? as if you are at any risk of someone finding you with that common of a name! I would use my real name too if it was John Smith!

      Anyway, I have agreed with you on some occasions, and disagreed with you on many more – but to accuse me of saying you lied about your background – you are NUTS. But most will see that based on your posts. I simply asked some questions.

      I have no idea what you are talking about with my “preoccupation” with the sexual proclivities of others either. We may not agree but I fail to see how that makes me a hypocrite.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 9:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian G.
      Brian G.

      It’s amazing how presumptuous so many people are about the definitive righteousness of their positions, that no one can oppose their advancement of “rights” without being a bigot. But wrapping up a set of policies under the rubric of “gay rights” doesn’t make them unopposable on their face, as supporters of those policies would like. That’s just a rhetorical trick to drown out any objections that might be had over the proper role of government and so forth.

      And now we see what that kind of canard has wrought. It condones this kind of thuggery, since not only are your opponents wrong, but they are evil bigots and deserve to be fought without regard to the ruthlessness required. What’s more, anyone gay who supports them is even worse, because they are now traitors. Those who cheer on this kind of behavior need to pause and take a look in the mirror, as they’re typical the most hateful and bigoted people around.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 5:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greybat
      greybat

      But isn’t that precisely how bigots behave? A regular person would just shrug it off as “not my cup of tea”, not actively work to undermine the lives of others.
      And isn’t that how a traitor behaves? Selling out the lives of others for personal gain?
      I think in the face of evil ruthlessness a touch of ruthlessness is required, although frankly I suspect people with all the rights and most of the power are pretty much immune to the pangs of conscience or self-reflection.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 7:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Simon, when you say “OK, I really have stuff to do, and can’t engage in extended debate.” you’re really just saying that you’re up shit creek without a paddle.

      Nothing you’ve said refutes the massively documented fact that the Democratic Party has lied to us for decades, accepted our money and votes and given us DOMA, DADT, a worthless feeble ENDA and no hate crimes legislation in return.

      So perhaps, Bill, you should fact-check more carefully, hmm?

      I do check my facts, we are not mentioned in the Democratic Party platform on Obama’s instructions. Read the platform, not some insipid fundraising doggerel to collect money to pay the legal defenses of the ordained pentecostal anti-LGBT bigot who runs the DNC. There’s been a huge discussion about our exclusion on this and a dozen other blogs and in the MSM for the last month or so. Google it and check you own facts before shooting off your mouth about issues you know nothing about, which seems to be politics in general. Read ‘em and weep, Simon.

      Where we are backhandedly mentioned is in regard to DADT, which means that Obama wants the winner in November to have a fresh supply of cannon fodder. That may seem like progress to you but I lost too many buddies and a lover in Vietnam to have anything but contempt for Obama and his war party and no patience at all for people who vote for more of our brothers and sisters being sent to kill and be killed in the Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and probably in Iran. We should fight to end the bigotry of Clintons DADT but urge GLBT folks to stay out of that genocidal war.

      Your party, like the Republican Party, is a cesspool of bigotry. Your vote will be a wasted vote, a vote for a party which by its actions has proven itself to be an enemy of our communities. The Democrats are just Republicans in drag, they both pander to bigots, they both plan to extend and expand the genocidal war to steal Middle East oil and they’re equally responsible for the economic crisis the looming over the country.

      Simon wants us to vote for the lesser bigot, the lesser warmonger, and the lesser Wall Street pet. What a waste of votes. The next president will be Nixon redux, and I expect that’ll be Obama. The only thing that can defeat him is McCain’s appeal to racists, a tactic first used by the Clintons in the primaries.

      If he wins watch for the new tent cities named Obamavilles instead of Hoovervilles. Listen for “Hey, hey, O BA Ma, how many kids did you kill today?”

      Etc.

      Obama is a right wing hustler who can be counted on to disappoint those hoodwinked into supporting him. It’ll be a real education for the GLBT communities, working people and the antiwar movement.

      An Obama presidency will be harder to politically dismantle than a McCain presidency, but it’ll be worth it because the effects will be so much more intense and have a marked destabilizing for the reactionary two party system that Simon is so uniformed about.

      Vote for the union led and financed US Labor Party. If not vote for socialist or communist candidates as a protest or join the scores of millions who sit it out because they’re smart enough to refuse to vote for the lesser bigot, the lesser warmonger or the lesser evil.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 9:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      “Jaroslaw,” you illustrate the dishonesty endemic in anonymous trolls quite nicely.

      to accuse me of saying you lied about your background – you are NUTS

      Nope, I’m accurate. Then again, I have to be, because my credibility and good name are on the line.

      Here’s a link to your post where you accused me of lying about my background:

      http://www.queerty.com/biden-to-speak-at-national-hrc-dinner-20080918/

      Brian – it is very hard for me to believe you have done all the things you say when you make posts like you did above.

      It’s interesting to note that you have a knack for insulting indivduals when they bring up points that go against your transparently partisan agenda. However, even a pseudonym cannot protect you from accountability for the comments you post on Queerty.

      Sadly, you’ve blown your already limited credibility.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 10:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      It condones this kind of thuggery, since not only are your opponents wrong, but they are evil bigots and deserve to be fought without regard to the ruthlessness required

      A valid point, though society has advanced to the point where Rogers’ “outing” of an already out gay man was received by a collective yawn by the DC political establishment.

      Wonkette said it best:

      So this guy Mark Buse, John McCain’s chief of staff, is allegedly gay, like every other chief of staff on the Hill. NOBODY CARES.

      That’s progress. And it must really piss off those partisan sorts who would employ base homophobia as a weapon of personal destruction against their political rivals.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 10:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      The following quote does not support your statement that I have accused you of lying about your background:

      “Brian – it is very hard for me to believe you have done all the things you say when you make posts like you did above.”

      If anyone else thinks it does, let me know. I think I’m saying clearly and unambiguously above that I don’t understand how your thought processes work. I can give you a thousand examples of decisions made at city council, the library board, State of Michigan, etc. where compromises were made. Almost never does either side get 100% of what they want. If this happens where you live, it is an unusual part of the world indeed. I also linked to the post, there is nothing there either.

      You keep saying I’m hypocritical but you don’t adress it. And the sexual proclivities thing? I’m still waiting for evidence of that too.

      Sep 25, 2008 at 10:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Simon
      Simon

      Bill “Simon, when you say “OK, I really have stuff to do, and can’t engage in extended debate.” you’re really just saying that you’re up shit creek without a paddle.”

      Ah, and here I thought it was because I’d been multitasking, hurriedly posting while I was also finishing up a project that was due the next morning. But since you’re apparently omniscient, I stand corrected.

      Listen, I’m certainly no cheerleader for the Democrats. Time and again, they’ve been a disappointment. I do not now and never have believed that Obama is the Messiah. But calling him nothing more than a homophobic bigot is both overly harsh and just plain silly. Is he influenced by societal homophobia? Well, prolly, same as most whites, if they’re honest with themselves, can discern the influence of societal racism. But that sure as crap doesn’t make him Jesse Helms.

      Rhetorical overkill helps no one. Even on this board, we’re seeing queers who don’t agree with one another being subjected to ad hominem attacks.

      Yes, Obama is a cautious, centrist pol. He’s stated that he wants to overturn DADT by consensus, not fiat, and that he favors a legislative repeal of DOMA, rather than pursuing the matter in the courts. You may say that’s just lip-service blather, and maybe it is. But the argument that there’s no difference between him and pro-Prop 8 McCain and the conservative-Catholic/evangelical base he’s pandering to? OK, go live in your wet dream of a massive queer left. After all, political compromise is no substitute for kvetching on a message board.

      Come to think of it, since we’re getting personal, just what kind of organizing – and with what party, faction, or organization – are you doing to further that massive queer movement? Your master stroke seems to be not “wasting” your vote on Obama, but instead impotently protesting by throwing your vote away on some party no one’s ever heard of. (I can just hear Pelosi lamenting “Oh, Bill Perdue voted for some weird Marxist! Where did I go wrong?”) Now, let’s for the moment forget that this was the Nader pitch. (Though I don’t know, maybe you in fact do believe we’re no worse off because Bush rather than Gore has been President the last 8 years.) But the U. S. Labor Party? Dude, I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. Labor Party was founded by thorough-going wacko Lyndon LaRouche, and was disbanded THIRTY YEARS AGO. Or maybe you mean “The Labor Party?” Well, I think a lot of what they propose economically is right on. But here’s a little exercise for ya. Go on over to their Website, go to the Party Program, and search for the word “gay.” Try that with their Constitution, too. It may be lip service, but at least the Obama site MENTIONS queers…and favorably.

      Back in the day, Nader-as-wrecker got financial support from a number of Republicans. Did he hand the election to Bush? Nah, probably not. But your suggestion that “building a queer left” includes taking a vote that might help keep fundie Palin from being one lesion away from the presidency, and instead giving it to a party that won’t even deign to mention us once, or maybe to a party that hasn’t even existed in the past three decades? If you didn’t exist, Karl Rove would’ve had to invent you.

      Sep 25, 2008 at 12:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      “Dude, I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. Labor Party was founded by thorough-going wacko Lyndon LaRouche, and was disbanded THIRTY YEARS AGO/”
      www dot thelaborparty dot org

      They refer to themselves as the US Labor Party, as do most of their supporters, so why the lying references to LaRouche’s gang of bigots? Tossing a little shit to see if it’ll stick? It won’t. You’ll have to become a lot better liar than that if you ever expect to get on the staff of the DNC.

      Simon, wake up and do some more fact checking. Now you have to read Obama’s platform, the one that, on his instructions, refuses to even mention us? Why did you lie and say it did? And you have to Google the US Labor Party. And don’t forget to look up homophobe. The definition is Helms.

      You most certainly are a cheerleader for the Democrats; it’s just that you’re the kind who keeps dropping the pom-poms.

      I’m glad that you finally admit that you believe it’s OK for politicians to be religious bigots as long as their name isn’t Helms. By that logic, though, I wonder why you don’t just vote for McCain. Like Obama, he opposes SSM but probably for more cynical reasons than the mindless superstition of Barak Obama, gods best friend in the fight against the satanic evils of SSM.

      Enjoy voting for the open bigotry of the Democrats, for a longer and wider war, and for the bailout. Many of us just don’t have the stomach to vote for parties that practice bigotry, support genocide and bailout predatory speculators. You, on the other hand, are happy to do so.

      Sep 25, 2008 at 7:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Simon
      Simon

      Bill, this is really getting tiresome. Fact is, I did Google “U.S. Labor Party.” I got two cites. One was the “U.S. Labor Party.” The other was “Labor Party (United States).” Considering you persistently describe me as a “liar,” you sure are getting cranky. OK, despite what I see on page 38, the platform does NOT has a paragraph supporting the repeal of DADT, and the phrase “Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race,sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, SEXUAL ORIENATATION, GENDER, (emphasis mine) age, and disability…” is a figment of my imagination. I’m just a compulsive liar, right?

      But tell me, where in the platform of the Labor Party, a mass movement with fewer people than Wasilla that you want us to vote for, are the rights of sexual minorities mentioned. Or am I lying about that, too?

      Sep 25, 2008 at 8:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      The Democratic Platform does not mention, on Obama’s instructions, the words Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgendered. Which is what I said three days ago in this thread in comment 21: “Or who ignores the fact that he won’t even allow our name to be mentioned in his platform lest it frighten the bigots he’s wooing.” So yes, Simon, in defense of your decision to vote for war, economic chaos and bigot pandering hustlers you do tend to be a compulsive liar.

      In 2000 and 2004 they at least mentioned us before plunging the knife in out backs on ENDA and the hate crimes bill, but not this time because Obama and the Democrats want a free ride with the bigots.

      And heres another lie, posed as a question. “But tell me, where in the platform of the Labor Party, a mass movement with fewer people than Wasilla that you want us to vote for, are the rights of sexual minorities mentioned. Or am I lying about that, too?”

      Yes. Simon. So quit lying. It does you no good. The Labor Party doesn’t have a much of a political program at all because much of it’s progress has been held back by Sweeney and other AFL-CIO bureaucrats who want us, as you do, to vote FOR bigotry, war and economic collapse even though they, like you, pretend to be against those things.

      When it gets moving again the USLP will be like the AFL-CIO unions that created it and fund it and like Pride at work (www dot prideatwork dot org) who are leading the fight for GLBT equality in the work place and whose efforts were sabotaged and betrayed by bigot enablers like Barney Frank, who gutted ENDA to please the Chamber of Commerce. The unions work for us in terms of job equality and the Democrats work against us. Which is probably one of the reasons you like them?

      For once, Simon, you’re right. The USLP, the Socialists and the Communists will get a miniscule protest vote, as will Nader. And this time around the boycott vote, the ‘none of the above” abstentionist vote might even dip under 50%.

      The protest vote parties are small, with only a few thousand members and often marginalized. But not always. A socialist, Gene Debs got 900,00 plus vote in 1912 and that scared the bejuzus out of the Democrats and Republicans, That’s why that debased collection of bigots, war makers and ‘bailout the rich types’ put laws in place, beginning with the Electoral College, that make a mockery of their claim that the US is a democratic nation.

      Simon doesn’t understand that. He delusional enough to believe he lives in a democracy, and silly enough to think that voting for Obama will advance our agenda. He believes that after DADT, DOMA, ENDA and the hate crimes bill. That not very bright. Simon, tell the truth for once, were you part of the cast of “Up with People”?

      People should vote for what they want, even if they don’t get it, rather than voting for what they don’t want, and getting it (to paraphrase Gene Debs). Simon on the other hands urgently wants to conform, to vote as he’s told, even if his vote elects a bigot pandering prowar bailout artist and pet of Wall Street named Barak Obama. And, oddly, he wants to tell us how proud of himself he is for doing that.

      Luke I’m against PUMAs for one reason and only one reason – they’re going to vote for Obama or McCain. That’s a mistake that will cost us dearly.

      Sep 25, 2008 at 10:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Simon
      Simon

      Jesus.

      Bill, for you, politics is not the art of the possible. It’s an excuse to be rude, condescending, absolutist, holier-than-thou, and exude the my-crap-doesn’t-stink sectarianism that’s helped sink what’s left of the Left over the past 40 years.

      You know NOTHING about who I am or what I believe, and nonetheless have the unmitigated gall to repeatedly launch ad hominem attacks on me, portraying me as the next best thing to Goebbels. So tell me, who died and left you the right to be Miss Stalin?

      You tell me I’m compulsively lying when I say the Labor Party platform doesn’t mention sexual orientation. OK, Miss Thing, show me where it does. Go on. Go on, show me where the Labor Party voices ANY support for queer rights in its platform. Oh, I see, it will SOMEDAY. And oh, yeah, according to Wikipedia, the Labor Party’s membership IS less than the population of Wasilla. So where’s the lie, huh? C’mon, puh-leeze show me where’s the lie, since I’m not very bright and you’re an effing genius, if you do say so yourself.

      Sigh. I’m out of here, not because I surrender, but because I give up. You’re as over-the-edge nasty as a speedfreak, honey. Why on EARTH should I bother with someone as utterly unpleasant as you’ve proven to be?

      Bill-O, for all your highflown idealistic rhetoric, your posts have the tone of someone who’d gleefully put on show trials at the local stadium and send anyone with whom he disagrees off to the re-education camps. You want to believe that while you’re valiantly making The Revolution, or at least posting as if you are, your oh-so-perfect politics gives you the right to put words in other people’s mouths and insult perfect strangers, including queers who have the temerity to disagree even slightly with you? Fine. Have fun.

      I simply will not be back here again, and it’s kind of a shame, because this stuff is interesting to me. But I’m thinking that our back-and-forth has entirely monopolized this conversation. And I honestly don’t need some full-of-himself butthole to spout vicious rhetoric at me like some surpassingly odd combination of Rosa Luxemburg and Ann Coulter. Yeah, I know you’ll say something snarky like “Well, it just shows that Simon knows he’s wrong.” Wrong. It’s because I see no reason to spend my time with compulsive bitches. No reason at all. Toodles.

      Um, are you SURE you’re not in pay of Karl Rove?

      Sep 26, 2008 at 3:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Simon, do you always go off your rocker when you’re exposed as a liar? Never mind, you just answered that question.

      Have fun at the DNC.

      Sep 26, 2008 at 3:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Simon
      Simon

      Bill, I said I was through with this discussion, and I am. After this. (‘Cause I was still on this page when you spewed your latest spew.)

      Surprise! You managed, once again, to avoid the issue by shitting out yet another nasty ad hominem attack. I challenged you over saying I lied about the Labor Party’s platform and size. And, gee, rather than bring evidence to the table to prove me wrong, you launched yet another of your childish insults. But Bill, sweets, if you say that’s something’s untrue when it is in fact the case, doesn’t make YOU the liar?

      No, I’m not off my rocker. Actually, I’m sane, and in a rather good mood, but thanks for your concern. I am, in fact, rather pitying you for your nasty disposition and your really ugly way of comporting yourself. And rather distressed that someone who purports to have the interests of queers at heart could be so judgmental, and such a bitterly nasty piece of work. Whatsamatter, can’t get laid?

      I am, for sure, out of here now. I’m filtering out e-mail showing updates to this thread, and deleting the bookmark for this page.

      Sorry, sweets, I will no longer give you the pleasure of rising to your rancid bait. Because you may be a cocksucker, but you’re also a sadist. And not in a nice way.

      Peace.

      Sep 26, 2008 at 3:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Simon get’s called our for being a liar and a bs artist, can’t defend his herd mentality in voting for a party that promotes war, economic chaos and panders to bigots, gets really pissed and tosses shit everywhere and then… grabs his marbles and runs home sniffling. I’m not surprised.

      Sep 26, 2008 at 4:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      “Jaroslaw,” I think we’ve already established that you don’t believe your words mean what they say, and that you have no compunction about using anonymity to avoid accountability for your commentary.

      With those two facts doubtlessly established, I don’t see the point of further “dialogue” on this matter.

      Sep 29, 2008 at 12:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • john carr
      john carr

      check out the gus at GOPAC. None are married….

      Dec 2, 2008 at 1:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.