Each week, Queerty picks one blowhard, hypocrite, airhead, sanctimonious prick or other enemy of all that is queer to be the Douche of the Week.
Have a nominee for DOTW? E-mail it to us at [email protected].
During the Holocaust, Jews and other prisoners who colluded with the Nazis in return for special privileges were called kapos.
In the African-American community, those who defer to racist whites have been called Uncle Toms.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
It’s becoming apparent we need a word for such people in the gay community—y’know, besides Log Cabin Republicans.
What to call Robert Traynham, for example, the openly gay former staffer to Senator Rick Santorum who’s created a road show defending his boss?
Oh, we know! How about Douche of the Week?
In a 2006 interview with journalist Mike Rogers, Traynham defended ol’ Frothy, saying “Senator Santorum is a man of principle, he is a man who sticks up for what he believes in. I strongly do support Senator Santorum.”
On Thursday, Traynham, who worked as a press agent for Santorum from 1997 to 2007, went on Hardball to again defend the second-place candidate against charges of homophobia and religious extremism. Traynham says he’s never heard Santorum make a homophobic remark. (No, he’s not hearing impaired—just a douche.)
Watching Traynham squirm as Chris Matthews puts basic questions to him would be humorous if it wasn’t so sad.
At one point Matthews shows Traynham a clip of Santorum at a rally attacking the LGBT community. In it, Slick Rick says:
If the Supreme Court says you have the right to consensual sexual activity, then you have the right to incest, the right to polygamy, to of all these sexual variations. And then the gay community has said he’s comparing gay sex to incest and polygamy, how dare he’s done this. And they’ve gone on a Jihad against Rick Santorum since then.
Stumbling for an answer that doesn’t paint the senator as a venomous homophobe, Traynham says he thinks Santorum is saying “you don’t have a right to privacy under the Constitution,” and that “from a legal point of view, he’s kind of right.”
After that bit of verbal origami, Traynham quickly adds that he is an out gay man who believes he should have the right to fall in love with whomever he chooses.
Good look with that under President Santorum.
So congrats on winning Douche of the Week, Mr. Traynham. It should go nicely on your mantle next to the Roy Cohn award BlogActive gave you back in 2005.
All together now: What a douche!
Source: TheGrio. Image via ThePRLog
Mike in Asheville
This year’s winner of the Richard Socarides and Ken Mehlman Kapo prize for Hypocrisy!
christopher di spirito
So Robert Traynham is black, gay and Rick Santorum’s apologist? Yes, I think douchebag is a worthy moniker. Asswipe fits well, too.
I
I’m starting to realize that the gay community’s biggest foe is other gay men.
tallskin2
“· I- I’m starting to realize that the gay community’s biggest foe is other gay men.”
Can you gather up your drug addled brain cells and explain that stupid remark??
Marie Cohn
Traynham is an out ‘n proud, conservative _blah_ man!
the crustybastard
“you don’t have a right to privacy under the Constitution,” and that “from a legal point of view, he’s kind of right.”
No, he’s not “kind of right,” or anything approaching “right.” He’s entirely, completely, utterly WRONG. As are you, Uncle Tom Kapo.
Had you actually READ the Constitution and made some small effort to understand what those words MEAN, you’d have discovered that the Fourth Amendment says, in pertinent part, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”, unequivocally speaks to the individual’s right to privacy (bodily and property), and — once again and as usual — limits the government’s powers in favor of individual liberty.
I can almost understand why a mentally impaired person might take to the argument, “the word ‘privacy’ isn’t in the Constitution, therefore there’s no right to privacy,” but I really cannot understand how a person with the mental horsepower to earn a college degree could possibly find such a goddam dumb argument in the slightest way compelling.
The Constitution is not, and has never been, a limitation on individual rights. It is, and always has been, a limitation on the power of government.
That’s basic high school civics, ferchrissakes.
I know some pious asshole is going to jump on me for this and scream “B-b-b-but POLL TAX!”, but it’s become achingly obvious that prospective candidates for public office should be required to pass a civics test before they can become candidates, and prospective voters should be required to pass a civics test before they are permitted to vote; otherwise, “Idiocracy” is going to turn out to be a fucking documentary.
Case in point: Santorum and his advisors clearly do not comprehend basic high school civics.
I
tallskin2 , you’re a moron if you don’t know what I’m talking about.
Evan Mulvihill
@the crustybastard: Preach, sister.
tookietookie
Santorum looks like someone pinched his nose.
GreatGatsby2011
@the crustybastard: Amen!
Philip
Actually, the supreme court ruled on the whole privacy issue – Griswold v. Connecticut. Just another example that the yutz has NO idea what he’s talking about.
Lucifer Arnold
I am so sick of hearing him tell Americans he is a gay black man, he says that on every show he has appeared on.
He was a ten year TOKEN.
dvlaries
Speaking of weekly features, here’s a former queerty one, The Regulars
http://www.theregularscomic.com/
Dale
Traynham was even worse because he openly lied his ass off when he claimed to not even know Santorum’s position on gays serving openly in the military. This from a guy who worked for Santorum for years! Plus Traynham was not out to Santorum for most of that time until he was outed by Mike Rogers.
Jim
Our rights are also not strictly limited to only that which is explicitly defined in the Constitution or its Amendments.
Swimmer - Chicago
He is a collaborator – he should be sent to the public square and flogged for his actions. I saw the interview – he is drinking Santorum’s koolaid and he is dumb as shit.
Spike
Looks like solid Santorum, vrs the frothy wet version . . .
Chitown Kev
@I:
I agree.
B
No. 14 · Dale wrote, “Traynham was even worse because he openly lied his ass off when he claimed to not even know Santorum’s position on gays serving openly in the military. This from a guy who worked for Santorum for years!”
You really need to justify that statement. If you check http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-traynham/7/27/175 (which has Trynham’s resume or bio), he worked as Santorum’s Communications Director from 1996 to 2001 and was the Deputy Chief of Staff/Communications Director for the U.S. Senate from 2001 to 2006. DADT started in 1993 and ended in 2011. It seems that there was no political activity regarding DADT in the U.S. Senate during the time Trynham was working for the senate in general or Santorum in particular, so there would have been no reason for Traynham and Santorum to talk about DADT.
Traynham can guess as well as I can, but I can see why he wouldn’t to make a guess when it would be taken to be a statement of fact, particularly on national TV.
Catman
@I:
Amen!!!
Mulder
Since there no longer remain any secluded land masses to sequester mentally sick persons as yourselves, NASA has volunteered to launch the diseased to a airless moon beyond Saturn where you are free to exercise the Constitution in any way you wish to twist it. Don’t be late for your scheduled flight.
aaaa
I suggest the word `Traynhamtors`. Is it catchy enough?
Ryan
B, you’re ridiculous. He claims to currently be unaware of r Santorum ‘s view on DADT now. That’s an obvious, blatant lie. Just like the lie that gays don’t like Santorum because he’s against gay marriage.
Caliban
A black gay Republican? Does he have his own pride parade? He could march to his mailbox and back while wearing a dunce cap.
Bluey
Well since he’s Santorum’s staffer, how about … “frothologist”?
Marc
Sadly, I know this guy’s type well. He’s never evaluated the truth of what he’s defending. Because doing so would not enable him to reap the rewards of defending his former boss and looking like a hero to the people he views as the power elite while attacking and crippling his own. This isn’t about Mr. Traynham’s personal beliefs. It’s about his personal ambition. Nothing more. He believes that the more he sells out, the more he’ll be repaid. What could get him more press time, face time, and kudos than being a black gay man who defends an obvious homophobic and racist candidate. This guy will sell out in a heart beat for a political appointment, money or simply for a higher social standing in the social world of his choice, which appears to be straight, white, conservatives.
I would call him a joke, but what he’s doing is not funny.
Chirstian
Gay Uncle Tom = Santorum Special
Chirstian
Gay Uncle Tom = Santorum Special
Gay Uncle Tom = Santorum Aid
Gay Uncle Tom = Santorum Lover
Gay Uncle Tom = Santorum Scrotum
Gay Uncle Tom = Rick Santorum
B
No. 23 · Ryan wrote, “you’re ridiculous. He claims to currently be unaware of r Santorum‘s view on DADT now. That’s an obvious, blatant lie.”
Why is it a lie? We’ve just had DADT repealed and now have some empirical data as to the outcome (all positive) and the question was asked in the present tense. He merely said he didn’t know the answer. Why should he know? He’s not currently working for Santorum, may not have talked to him recently, and just might have more pressing things to do than to track the mutterings of that sideshow. You can’t use Santorum’s Senate record either – he was out of office when DADT was debated and finally repealed. Even if Santorum previously supported DADT, how would Traynham know if Santorum had changed his mind based on how the implementation of the repeal turned out to be a non-event, not the disaster the wingnuts predicted?
I might add that before calling people “ridiculous”, you might want to work on your language skills and note what a person was actually asked before commenting on it. Unlike you, Traynham might not want to state that something is factually true on national TV when his answer would really be just a guess (even if it would be pretty good guess): if he said, “Well, I’m not 100% certain, but I would guess that Rick Santorum believed …,” guess which part will be edited out when the sound-bytes start flying.
Finally, the video actually made Chris Matthews look like a jerk. Traynham appeared to be trying to give a nuanced answer to the questions (whether you agree with his answers or not) and Matthews kept interrupting him, possibly to get sound bytes rather than anything substantive.
Ryan
B,
You continue to be ridiculous, and now it is crystal clear you are lying yourself. Santorum has stated in several debates and interviews that he opposed DADT repeal and would seek to reinstate it. There’s simply no way this man Traynham doesn’t know this. He was just squirming and in the hot seat because he was defending a man who is utterly indefensible.
Ryan
B, surely you remember the controversy over the gay solider being booed? You can bet Traynham does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiXhKJqen-A
Of course, you could be right. It could be that Santorum’s good friend and supporter is somehow completely unaware of his very public views on DADT and gay people in general. But then he’d have to be extraordinarily stupid. And honestly, what are the chances?
Critical thinking. You might want to try it sometime.
B
No. 30 · Ryan wrote, “B, You continue to be ridiculous, and now it is crystal clear you are lying yourself. Santorum has stated in several debates and interviews that he opposed DADT repeal and would seek to reinstate it. There’s simply no way this man Traynham doesn’t know this.”
No, Ryan, it is you who are being ridiculous. Traynham hasn’t worked for Santorum for years, and until a week or so ago, Santorum’s campaign had gone nowhere. Like the others with their proverbial 15 minutes of fame, Santorum will probably sink into oblivion as well. Santorum’s a sideshow.
Traynam’s profile is at http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-traynham/7/27/175 . He has a busy schedule. Why would he bother keeping tabs on some minor candidate who will almost certainly sink from sight in short order? If Traynam ends up having to cover Santorum, Traynam will probably have a low-level staffer gather the material so he can read it during his TV gig, but won’t spend any personal time keeping tabs on his former boss, which is simply a waste of time.
Then (in No 31, you make a fool of yourself by saying “Critical thinking. You might want to try it sometime.” You should take your own advise and ask why Traynam, in his current position, would waste time memorizing a set of “talking points” that only Santorum’s PR flack would be expected to remember.
Traynam was actually trying to give a coherent explanation of Santorum, only Matthews kept interrupting. He was trying to explain how Santorum’s views are tied to specific theological concepts which results in Santorum making very weird distinctions that a normal person would never make. Unfortunately, Matthews timed out and started ranting, more or less throttling what Traynam was trying to say.
Ryan
The fact that you continue defending this man in the most transparently pathetic way speaks volumes about you integrity. (ie–you have none). A person with any sort of dignity would have admitted he was wrong by now, and yet you desperately cling to the absurd and impossible notion that a former staffer and friend of Santorum (one who would take time off of his “busy schedule “to go on TV and defend the man, no less) would be unaware of his extremely public and vocal anti-gay policies. Shame on you.
Roman
The pathology of steadfast denial. He’s gonna have a lot to potentially work through some day. Sad.
Ryan
Roman, I’m not sure if you’re talking about “B”, Traynham, or both. Either way, I agree.
Mike
@Ryan: Ryan, you know you can’t win an argument with a moron?
B reminds me of one of my Shakespeare favorites: [To B, (no pun) not you]: “I’d challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed.”
B
No. 33 · Ryan wrote, “The fact that you continue defending this man in the most transparently pathetic way speaks volumes about you integrity.”
Ryan, first let’s get one thing clear – the person with zero integrity is you because you are the one going around accusing Robert Traynham of lying without proof.
Pointing out that Traynham was not working for Santorum, and that Santorum was not in the Senate, when DADT was debated and repealed is not “defending” anyone. It is a statement of fact. Given what a sideshow Santorum is, it is plausible that Tranham was not paying any attention to him and simply didn’t want to make an off-the-cuff remark when he wasn’t sure. If you want to claim otherwise, it is your obligation to provide hard evidence that Traynham was in fact lying.
I might also add, that if you, and some of the other intellectually-challenged individuals commenting on it, had bothered to keep up with what was going on, you’d know that Santorum has raised very little money and has not built the sort of national organization needed to run a serious presidential campaign. Starting with New Hampshire, he’s going to find himself in a position where he’s going to have to shell out some real money for TV and radio advertising to be competitive, but he doesn’t have the resources to do that. Unless a “miracle” happens, he’s going to sink into oblivion, if not in New Hampshire, soon afterwards. Even if he somehow manages to raise a lot of money before the primary, he could still be in trouble – there’s some lead time you need to get TV spots and better funded candidates are gobbling those up.
If you look at the linkedin profile for Traynham that I provided for you, his professional position is such that he’s surely well aware that Santorum is almost certainly a flash in the pan, a sideshow. The current media interest in Santorum is no different than a radio announcer at a horse race hyping “glue pot”, who seems to be gaining temporarily, just to keep listeners interested, when the announcer knows that “glue pot” will peter out in another 1/4 mile because that’s what “glue pot” always does. Given that, it is plausible that Traynham wasn’t keeping tabs on Santorum’s current positions because he knows very well that Santorum is not a serious candidate. In cases like that, you get some “new hire” to gather some material so you have a few tidbits when you need it, but you’d hardly waste time memorizing it or paying any attention to it any more than you’d bother memorizing yesterday’s lottery number.
Esculapio Mitiríades Torquemada de la Cueva
@Mike: Not actually Shakespeare, though.
Ryan
He was asked onto the show because he was a former staffer and friend of Santorum who is also gay. It is obvious that he would be asked questions about Santorum’s views on gay rights.
*THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON HE WAS THERE*
It is not only not “plausible” that Traynham didn’t know Santorum’s views on DOMA, DADT, Lawrence v Texas, etc, isn’t not even remotely possible. If he didn’t know anything about the topic that he was *asked* onto the show to discuss, he should’ve declined the invitation. But he didn’t decline it, because he *did* know.
And you know this. Shame on you for defending this trash, you liar.
He pretended not to know the answer because he wanted to put forth the fiction that the gay community hates Santorum simply because Santorum is against gay marriage, when every gay person knows that is not the reason.
B
No. 39 · Ryan again jumped to conclusions by saying “He was asked onto the show because he was a former staffer and friend of Santorum who is also gay. It is obvious that he would be asked questions about Santorum’s views on gay rights. *THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON HE WAS THERE*”
Oh, so Ryan wants us to believe that he was somehow privy to private discussions between Traynham and Matthews (or their staff) regarding Traynham’s appearance on a program. In fact, Traynham seemed perfectly willing to talk about Santorum with regard to what traits or beliefs result in Santorum’s views. He simply declined to try to speak for Santorum regarding Santorum’s current positions on various issues. No surprise – if Matthews wanted that, he should have interviewed Santorum himself, or a campaign spokesperson. It’s hardly reasonable to expect Traynham to show up with a list of “talking points” for Santorum when Traynham is not currently working for Santorum.
Just to give Ryan a word of advice: he’d look like less of an idiot if he would refrain from calling people “liars” for merely pointing out that Ryan had not provided any real evidence to support statements he made. All Ryan does is to jump to conclusions and then get belligerent when it becomes obvious that Ryan has no factual basis on which to justify his statements.
While Traynham was being interrupted a lot, making his statements harder to understand, he seemed to be saying that Santorum has an extreme right-wing view on state’s rights and on limits to what the federal government can do, that Santorum did not act homophobic on a personal level when interacting with Traynham, but that they had substantive disagreements on marriage. Traynham simply indicated that he didn’t know Santorum’s viewpoint on DADT. So what? If he in fact didn’t know, he should simply say he didn’t know. It is not like Traynham is trying to cover things up – Matthews can easily pull up video clips of just about anything he needs as Traynham certainly knows.
The video clips of Santorum showed that he has a penchant for “slippery slope” arguments with extreme examples. If you don’t like to see politicians use such arguments, send them the two signals they understand – don’t vote for them and don’t give them money.
Robert in NYC
This has more to do with Stockholm Syndrome, the oppressed loving their oppressors, quite common among many gay republicans. I mean, who in their right mind will vote for anyone who thinks marriage equality should be banned and enshrined in the constitution. Only one republican, Ileana Ros-Lehthinen has signed on to the Respect for Marriage bill authored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D) bringing the total to 31 democrats and 1 republican. What does that tell you about the GOP and the parade of dimwitted clowns running for the presidency? Romney even wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, that’ll sit well with women voters. So if you’re into regression and more oppression, vote republican or civil libertarian.
Mike in Asheville
@Esculapio Mitiríades Torquemada de la Cueva: Really?
Its been 30+ years since my Berkeley undergrad years, so I may very well have misremembered this one. So, I Googled the quote as I remembered it, and there are several web sites that reference the quote as Shakespeare, alas, I did not find a reference to the source material. I did come across an Oscar Wilde version that I also liked very much: “I refuse a battle of wits with the unarmed man.”
Do you have a different reference you would like to share?
B
No. 40 · Robert in NYC wrote, “This has more to do with Stockholm Syndrome, the oppressed loving their oppressors, quite common among many gay republicans. I mean, who in their right mind will vote for anyone who thinks marriage equality should be banned and enshrined in the constitution.”
I think it has more to do with the press trying to turn a non-entity into a story to keep viewers’/listeners’ attention during the campaign! The last poll numbers I saw showed Santorum in the high single-digits in New Hampshire – about 8% of the vote.
I don’t think people should pay much attention to Santorum’s views per se. The factors that lead him to behave the way he does are of much more interest. Take his man/dog thing: while he actually said that homosexuality is not something like that, why would the thought even pop into his head? One possibility – he goes to fire-and-brimstone churches or hangs out with religious extremists who foam at the mouth at the mere thought of someone being gay, and was trying to sound more moderate than they are by indicating that the extreme statements he hears are gross exaggerations. When stated out of the context of a fire-and-brimstone church, it ends up sounding offensive as the general public has no clue where these extreme statements are coming from and that he might have been repeating what he’s heard over and over to disagree with it (he may still think that homosexuality is sinful, but no worse than the “sins” attributed to average people, which in some right-wing religious circles would make him a relative moderate.)
Esculapio Mitiríades Torquemada de la Cueva
@Mike in Asheville: I did check online before I posted yesterday, to make sure I wasn’t talking out of my ass. Like you say, a few websites claim it’s from Shakespeare, but none of them name a poem or play, which is kind of a giveaway. Further, more definitive proof: All of Shakespeare is online and searchable, so if this was Shakespeare, a Google search of the quote (or some variation on it) should result in at least a few links to the play or poem of his from which it comes. There are some other websites that claim it’s Wilde or Churchill (or some other person), but I think the origin of the quote hasn’t been established definitively.
Mike
Is “RamgeRover” boy still trolling for white tops online? Pathetic.
the homo
i just would like to say that i would bang his baby if i had the chance and not his daughters because im homo 😉