Rough Tough Cream Puffs
Posted 16 weeks 2 days ago byThe tendency of Right Wing bloggers to use scatological, homophobic, and sexual dominance metaphors in addition to their usual tactics of character assassination brings to mind some research I did last summer on the prevalence of closeted gay homophobics in the neo-con ranks…
From the days of the SA, the Sturmabteilung of Hitler’s rise to power, homosexuals have been convenient scapegoats and the label has been an easy club to attack the non-conformist. The fact that often the attackers are themselves self-hating and conflicted homosexuals pushes this tactic beyond the point of irony and well into the area of psychosis. Transference and denial are just two of the obvious psychological tags that apply.
Of course, homosexuals in positions of power do not have to be hypocrites or to abuse their powers in repression of their fellows. Democratic New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey announced his resignation in 2004, disclosing publicly that he was a homosexual and had an extramarital affair with another man.
But the rumor mill has been busy for years, and several websites have made it their business to out gay-bashing homosexuals in positions of power or influence. They are invariably Republicans.
Sometimes the evidence is obvious. Terry Dolan ran NCPAC to elect far-right Republicans in the 1970's when they were attacking gay victims of AIDS, and later died of AIDS.
David Dreier, a powerful Congressman who votes consistently against gay rights is often cited as a closeted gay, as is Ken Mehlman who ran George Bush's 2004 campaign with anti-gay marriage as central issue, and was until last year the Chairman of the Republican Party.
Armstrong Williams, an African American pundit of sorts, regularly attacked gay marriage on CNN, but was forced to settle a gay sex harassment lawsuit for $200K
One must understand that the gay world in an insular town such as Washington DC is very small; everybody knows everybody else and a disgruntled or blatantly abusive person attracts attention at his own risk.
James Guckert, AKA Jeff Gannon, a supposed newsman, attracted attention and probably some jealousy receiving preferential treatment in the White House Newsroom, and also wrote gay-bashing articles for right-wing Talon News service. Some persons unknown made it their business to expose Guckery/ Gannon as a gay prostitute, whose stock in trade was posing as a buff macho military type on several quite explicit and commercial websites.
The controversy surrounding disgraced White House correspondent James Guckert, just gets better and better, although the mainstream media handles the story with the longest of tongs. Recently the Secret Service furnished logs of the Guckert’s access to the White House after requests by two Democratic congress members.
The documents, obtained by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal Guckert had remarkable access to the White House. Though he wrote under the name Jeff Gannon, the records show that he applied with his real name.
Gannon’s ready access to President Bush and his work for a news agency that frequently plagiarized content from other reporters and tailored it to serve a conservative message may raise new questions about the White House’s attempts to seed favorable news coverage. Democrats have sought to paint Guckert in the context of other efforts by the Administration to “plant” positive spin by paying for video news releases and columnists to espouse their views.
Guckert made more than 200 appearances at the White House during his two-year tenure with the fledging conservative websites GOPUSA and Talon News, attending 155 of 196 White House press briefings. He had little to no previous journalism experience, previously worked as a male escort, and was refused a congressional press pass.
Perhaps more notable than the frequency of his attendance, however, is several distinct anomalies about his visits.
Guckert made more than two dozen excursions to the White House when there were no scheduled briefings. On many of these days, the Press Office held press gaggles aboard Air Force One—which raises questions about what Guckert was doing at the White House.
On at least fourteen occasions, Secret Service records show either the entry or exit time missing. Generally, the existing entry or exit times correlate with press conferences; on most of these days, the records show that Guckert checked in but was never processed out.
That’s just like the Hotel California in reverse, ain’t it?
All this may be a tiny note in the saga of the Bush White House, but I find it most amusing. Nobody is getting killed, true, but the pattern of hypocrisy and arrogance is unmistakable; “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Gay Republican expose sites:
* AmericaBlog
* BlogActive
* CannonFire
* Direland
* Eschaton
Members of Congress who are often mentioned on these websites include Virginia wingnut Ed Schrock, now retired, Mark Foley (F-FL), also retired due to the House Page scandal, and three who are still hiding in their closets, David Dreier (R-CA), James McCrery R-LA), and Larry Craig (R-ID).
Craig is a Senator and the one caught in an airport bathroom in a police sting. Barney Frank, the only openl gay in congress, and a Democrat, outed Craig on the Bill Maher show last year. Others mentioned in the Senate are Mitch (AKA ‘Miss”) McConnell (R-KY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
Back in the House right wing extremist Patrick McHenry is a ‘life long bachelor.” He is in his 30’s but the oldest bachelor congressman is Republican Howard Coble, 76, also from the Bible Belt State of North Carolina.
Perhaps the most interesting and personal look at this phenomenon is the book, “Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative” a 2002 book written by former conservative journalist David Brock detailing his departure from the conservative movement. It is also the story of his coming out as a gay man. In the book, he recounts visiting gay bars with Matt Drudge and other conservatives.
Wikipedia notes, “When Brock learned that galleys of the book were being faxed around Washington prior to its initial release, he waited anxiously for the right shoe to drop. It never did. While the book was favorably reviewed in the mainstream press, conservative news organs such as the New Republic, National Review, Washington Times and New York Post, as well as the Wall Street Journal, all surprisingly took a pass. Surprising, because specific reporters and editorialists from each of these papers are pretty thoroughly kicked in the shins throughout the book. Even more surprising was that no efforts surfaced to discredit anything he wrote of a personal nature about players in the media and in the political arena. And personal they are ---blushingly so. He avers that he has not been sued or even, except in a "gotcha" on the date of a wedding, caught in an inaccuracy. In one case, a columnist at the New York Daily News called to say that Matt Drudge, author of a well-known online newsletter, had denied Brock's allegation that he had hit on him in Los Angeles, following up with a sexually suggestive email. When Brock faxed a copy of the offending email to the Daily News columnist, he heard nothing more.”
I have read “Blinded By The Right,” and it is a sad and credible work. Brock is a good writer, at the very least. He “made his bones” for the conservatives by writing dump job bios of Anita Hill and Hillary Clinton.
The Compassionate Conservatives, the very people who convinced millions of good Christians that they, the Republicans were the only bastion of “Family Values” against the rising tide of the “Liberal Homosexual Agenda” prove to have feet of clay, and hearts of tin.
I don’t suppose the good people will ever wake up to how cruelly they have been duped, denial is so much easier, and all this is just a footnote to Iraq, Torture, the Oil Mess, Enron, the Housing Bubble, Katrina, Afghanistan and all the other demonstrations of incompetence we have been gifted with for the last seven and a half years, but this is at least amusing if one has a strong enough stomach.
To make myself plain; I could give a crap what adults do to each other. Love of any shape is hard to find. But to preach one thing and live another, is plain and simply a sin. Jesus had words on the subject of hypocrisy, although he was silent on the varieties of love.














Thoughts
Blind leading the blind
Submitted on June 25th, 2008 by Bull MooseTalk about two birds of a feather.
What a pity with all the homeless kids and families on the streets in the good old USA, thanks to the Bush war,these busybodies can't contribute anything to society but deluded thougts and hate.
Koolmom
Submitted on June 24th, 2008 by PabloSexuality in humans is a learned response.
Children reflect what they are taught.
Even those who are what you would call a moma's boy have been taught to be what they are!
Those things are reinforced through some emotional response which the child uses to base their ideals on the full picture of sexuality.
What is known is that if a child was brought up in a true neutral way, they will be hetrosexual.
Those that grow up Homosexual are exposed to homosexuality!
As much as the homosexual community wishes to disagree, its a scientific fact of life!
All homosexuals when they are honest and if you read the thousands of popular autobiographies, you will find that the when they discovered homosexuality as a child. I am sure there are a few exceptions!
Mainly the Woman abused syndrom to hate all male contact and the so called college experiences which are mainly women. Yea I have heard it all.
My nephew brought up all that stuff to try and prove that his choice of being gay was natural and was not immoral.
After a while, when he realized that people were seening through his BS, he admitted the truth. Told who and when and how he went down the path to homosexuality.
Which is my point! Homosexuals often talk about the journey! Which basically means how they decided they were Gay!
Its not a born thing! Its a learned thing. If a person grows up in a strict hetrosexal environment with love, they always will be hetrosexuals.
Homosexuals often talk about rejection, lack of love and so forth. So I think you get the picture!
But sexuality in humans is learned!
Bull-y
Submitted on June 23rd, 2008 by HamiltonSmart?
B. Hamilton Langrehr:
The Hamilton Post: www.thehamiltonpost.blogspot.com
Uncouth they are Wish
Submitted on June 23rd, 2008 by Bull MooseThe only ideas these right wingers have is what pill head Lush Windbaugh. or the phone sex pervert O'Reilly tell them to have.
While they do not have a booth in the intellectual flea market, you would expect just a little hint of education in their postings. But, alas, not to be.
Outside of you and Mercyphotography there is very little exchange of ideas here. It is definitely not Mrs. Dorothy Parker and her round table.
But keep casting your pearls before swine Wish, at least some of us out here appreciate your efforts to educate.
Reply to wishnevsky
Submitted on June 23rd, 2008 by TreeTopFlyer"The reason that the Republicans are going to get slaughtered in the coming election is that people don't trust them any more. People don't trust them because they are a lying bunch of power-mad, conniving hypocrites with not the slightest respect for America, the Constitution, law, the people, Christianity or any thing else except making money and gaining power." ~ wishnevsky
I agree...
-----BUT-----
That is also the reason the Democrats in Congress got slaughtered under President Clinton. One party in control of everything exhibits all the traits you mention above. It is about politics, power and the hubris of those in charge. NOT about which side of the political divide you sit.
put them in a box
Submitted on June 22nd, 2008 by koolmom21If you think that a person is born heterosexual or homosexual then why would you try to put them in a box?
Do you???
Submitted on June 22nd, 2008 by koolmom21You are a arrogant person. Do you even live in our country?
Pablo, you are a geologist
Submitted on June 22nd, 2008 by wishnevskyPablo, you are a geologist and your wife is a sociologist, but you don't know how to spell sociologist.
And you seem to have unlimited time to respond to every post on this list, at length.
Geology must pay very well. Good for you.
You constantly obscure the
Submitted on June 22nd, 2008 by wishnevskyYou constantly obscure the point, not surprising as your politics are also wrong, obtuse and obscure.
Barney Frank is an out gay male, in a long term relationship with a partner. Larry Craig is in denial, cheated on his wife, exposed her to the risk of AIDS, lied to his constituents, solicited gay sex in the sleaziest manner and most importantly, campaigned against gay marriage and gar rights, becoming a hypocrite. Par for the course.
Gay, straight, asexual, whatever, it is required of a moral person that they maintain faith with their partners, not lie about their beliefs, and represent themselves in public and private with some honesty.
But, then after seeing how Newt Gingrich treated his wives, i can't be too surprised.
The reason that the Republicans are going to get slaughtered in the coming election is that people don't trust them any more. People don't trust them because they are a lying bunch of power-mad, conniving hypocrites with not the slightest respect for America, the Constitution, law, the people, Christianity or any thing else except making money and gaining power.
Is this some kind of news to you?
No Wish ...
Submitted on June 22nd, 2008 by John 2000only democrats are honorable and the gayer they are the more honorable they simply must be.
and should a republican actually be gay well then he/she must be a despicable monster.
Since you are a democrat and more honorable than most humans, can I deduce that you yourself are gay?
janmb
Submitted on June 21st, 2008 by PabloThere is no scientific proof found anywhere that a person is born gay! It does not exist.
Its just an opinion not a scientific fact.
If you really want to go down that road, find a non homosexual scientist who has written a paper to say that. You will not find it.
Find yet any paper to show that in nature that homosexuality is the norm for a life choice out side of humans. You also will not find it.
I should know, my wife is a socialogist and I asked her.
KoolMom
Submitted on June 21st, 2008 by PabloYou hit the nail right on the head.
I know more democrats who are anti gay than republican ones.
I am an independent. But that seems to not matter.
The real reason why democrats are seen the way they are is because of who is leading their party. They are extreme liberals thus they display the idea that the democratic party is more open when in reality its not.
Oy Vey
Submitted on June 21st, 2008 by John 2000somebody please show me where the showers are. I been in the closet too long, but there are so many doors and i am getting so conflicted and crazy mixed up about who is what and where is who when this and that because of plausible deniability and tapes.
Just call in an airstrike, please.
Bloggage
Submitted on June 21st, 2008 by wishnevskyAll i have to say to all this bloggage (it's a Democratic plot) is compare Barney Frank to Larry Craig. Who is the moral one there?
It's not being gay for these Republicans as much as it is a matter of power. It's like the "gay sex" in prisons. It's all about who is penetrated and who gets to penetrate.
And i didn't even mention that the "Homosexual Agenda" propaganda was not an issue until the child abuse scandal broke in the Catholic Church.
Oldest trick in the book, change the subject, accuse your accusers of your own sins and scramble for the high ground.
Yay, are they all honorable men.
this is just easy, Mr. Puff
Submitted on June 21st, 2008 by HamiltonRepublican Gays are Closeted Dems
By Cliff Kincaid | October 12, 2006
So if the gay Republicans are not really Republicans, what are they?
The complex nature of the "dirty trick" against the Republicans over the Mark Foley scandal is beginning to emerge. It doesn't involve a George Soros-funded group or emails that had been in the possession of the media or shopped around by Democratic operatives. Instead, the GOP has played a trick on itself. The party brought so-called gay Republicans into positions of power in Congress only to realize that the confidential information they held about a secret gay network was political dynamite that could backfire.
At this point in the scandal, the issue is not whether there was such a network, but how big it is. CBS Evening News correspondent Gloria Borger reported the emerging belief that "a group of high-level gay Republican staffers were protecting" Foley. A New York Times story by Mark Leibovich confirmed that gay Republicans have occupied "crucial staff positions" in Congress and "have played decisive roles in passing legislation, running campaigns and advancing careers."
The mystery man at the center of the scandal, Jeff Trandahl, is supposed to be a "lifelong Republican" who is gay. But Trandahl, who supervised the congressional page program as House clerk and knew about the controversial Foley emails many years ago, has a strange way of showing his Republicanism. A search of Federal Election Commission (FEC) records over the last six years shows no financial contributions to the Republican Party or Republican candidates. Instead, Trandahl in 2000 gave $1,200 to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which gives over 80 percent of its political campaign money to Democrats.
Trandahl is so much of a Republican that he joined the board of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, another gay political action committee that commits most of its funds to electing Democrats. Its latest list of "winning candidates" is all Democrats, except for Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee, who admits not voting for President Bush in 2004.
If you are getting the idea that gay Republicans may be closeted Democrats, then you are beginning to understand how the Mark Foley scandal could have been a Democratic Party dirty trick.
In response to the scandal, a representative of the Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual activist group, has been on cable channels like CNN and MSNBC expressing the fear that the Foley scandal will be used to root out homosexual influence in the Republican Party. But the Log Cabin Republicans are so Republican that its board voted 22-2 against endorsing President Bush in 2004 because of his stand against homosexual marriage.
So if the gay Republicans are not really Republicans, what are they? One veteran observer of this network told AIM that the Foley scandal should make it crystal clear that the gay Republicans are in reality "liberal activists" who want to use the party to advance the same homosexual agenda embraced by the Democrats.
Ominously, the Foley scandal suggests that this network has inside information about the sexual behavior of members of Congress and their staffers that can be exploited in order to create scandals at a moment's notice. Only now are House Republican leaders like Dennis Hastert beginning to understand the trap they may have gotten themselves into. They thought they were being tolerant and diverse and constructing a "big tent" when they were giving gay Republicans important positions of power. It is now apparent that this power has been used to sabotage the party from within. Conservatives who blame Soros, the media or the Democrats for this debacle are whistling past the graveyard, which happens to be near the place where Hastert made his statement the other day that staffers will be fired "if there was a cover-up."
It is extremely significant that Rep. Jim Kolbe, an openly gay Republican, has emerged to play a key role in the Foley scandal. Embraced by Hastert in a video tribute at a Log Cabin Republican event earlier this year, Kolbe was the first closeted gay Republican to have been threatened and blackmailed by radical gay activists into coming out of the closet and embracing key parts of the gay agenda.
Now we find out that Kolbe, a former page himself, knew about Foley's emails as far back as 2000. That is when he was a member of the House Page Board. Kolbe, according to the Washington Post, served as a "mentor" to the pages and "invited four former pages to make use of his Washington home," supposedly when he was out of town. In the most recent revelation, it has been reported that Kolbe took two former pages, both male, on a trip to the Grand Canyon.
Kolbe says that a former page told him that he was receiving emails from Foley that made him feel uncomfortable. Instead of passing this information on to House leaders or other authorities, Kolbe says that he provided it to Foley's office and Trandahl. In a statement, Kolbe said that he assumed the email contact ceased "since the former Page never raised the issue again with my office."
How about that for accountability? The information about a former page being sexually harassed by Foley is turned over to Foley and Trandahl, two of Kolbe's fellow homosexuals. It's no wonder the young man didn't raise the matter again with Kolbe. He saw that it was a dead end.
Kolbe also declared, in his statement, that he believed this was the "appropriate way to handle this incident given the information I had and the fact that the young man was no longer a Page and not subject to the jurisdiction of the program." Such a statement seems to suggest that Kolbe viewed the pages as fair game for Foley, or at least a private matter for the disgraced Congressman, once they became former pages. That is exactly the modus operandi that Foley seems to have used. He targeted and cultivated the young men when they were working for Congress and then made his move when they had left the page program. Foley's progression from "friendly" to "explicit" Internet messages was part of his pattern as a homosexual pedophile predator.
Some liberal and left-wing groups, in addition to the gay Republican organizations, seem fearful of what the investigation might uncover. But radical gay activists sympathetic to the Democratic Party's pro-homosexual agenda are already naming the names of members of the secret network, reaching from Congress into the White House and the Republican National Committee. One such activist is Michael Rogers. Another is John Aravosis, who worked for Republican Senator Ted Stevens from 1989 to 1994.
Trandahl, who was appointed by Hastert as House Clerk in 1999 and resigned on November 18, 2005, figures in almost every important account of the Foley scandal as someone with inside information. David Rogers of the Wall Street Journal noted that Trandahl was "an adviser and friend" to Foley and was "in a unique position to recognize the implicit danger in the fact that Mr. Foley wasn't just close to pages on the House floor but was pursuing contact via email." Although Trandahl has hired a lawyer and hasn't talked publicly, numerous reports portray him in a flattering light, saying he tried to warn various Congressional officials about Foley's conduct. Calls to Trandahl and his lawyer were not returned.
It seems appropriate to note that one of the few Republicans financially supported by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, the pro-Democratic group to which Trandahl made his contributions in 2000, was Rep. Jim Kolbe. Was the first "openly gay" Republican member of Congress a closeted Democrat as well? It's certainly the case that he started acting more like a Democrat once his secret life was exposed. He has, for example, become a prominent advocate of gays in the military and has denounced the proposed federal amendment protecting traditional marriage.
It is also beyond dispute that the current scandalous state of affairs will outlive the Foley scandal unless the secret network of bludgeon and blackmail is exposed.
An investigation of Kolbe, 64, is obviously warranted. He may be retiring from Congress, but his camping trip with 17-year-old male pages seems to be at least as questionable as the Foley Internet messages. Let's hope knee-jerk Republican defenders don't try to defend that trip as just a "friendly" excursion.
It's early in the probe, but we may be looking at emerging evidence of a homosexual recruitment ring that operated on Capitol Hill. It's time to get beyond partisan politics and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Our media should not be intimidated by charges of "gay bashing." They must lead the way in getting to the bottom of this terrible abuse of power.
Kincaid brings up a lot of information that has so far been kept out of the reports on the Foley follies by our one party media.
Though I’m sure they will jump right on it, now that it has come out.
Any minute now.
This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, October 12th, 2006
B. Hamilton Langrehr:
The Hamilton Post: www.thehamiltonpost.blogspot.com
ISSUE IS AS COMPLICATED AS HUMANS ARE
Submitted on June 21st, 2008 by janmbHuman behaviors are often difficult to understand or accept. Much discrimination starts with religious views no matter how educated people are.
I know personally a doctor who has scientific knowledge that believes gays are born that way.
However, due to his religious views believes that practising homosexuality is a sin.
That's in essense saying (in religious terms) that GOd created these gay people but then wants to punish them by not allowing them love and companionship for the rest of their lives.
Perhaps, we were given common sense for a reason ?
Wow, that is a stretch.
Submitted on June 21st, 2008 by TreeTopFlyerSo, let me get this straight (no pun intended).
So, if I go to a gay bar with a buddy (or heck, with my wife) because we are looking for a place to have a drink, find out it is a gay bar (or maybe we already know it is a gay bar), don't really care what kind of a bar it is, and stay to have those drinks. By your reasoning, I am therefore a closeted, hypocritical, scatological (Defined: 1. vulgar language related to excretory function. 2. a preoccupation with excrement or obscenity. 3. the scientific study of excrement, especially for diagnostic purposes), homophobic, closeted neo-con, user of sexual dominance metaphors, self-hating and conflicted homosexual, gay-bashing, character assassinator because I don’t, what, believe homosexual marriage should be legal?
I find your use of “facts” (log discrepancies and “lifelong bachelor”) as comical especially in a piece railing against “their usual tactics of character assassination” which includes ubiquitous name calling and character assassination based on flimsy hearsay, vague association, and totally unrelated “facts.”
But what takes the cake is your use if a biblical illusion to hypocrisy to conclude a piece that uses ill-defined and vague character assignation to accuse a nebulous and unidentified group of hypocrisy and character assassinations. Congrats.
The bible also references something to the effect of “Don’t point out the splinter in someone else’s eye and forget about the plank in your own.”
the evidence
Submitted on June 21st, 2008 by koolmom21Just because you identify anti gay with republicans does not make it so. Who ever said that all democrats are for gay rights and all republicans are anti gay??? I do not believe that this has ever been identify as a political stance. It is a moral position not a political one.
P.S. you give the evidence in your own blog and I rest my case.