Is it now an acceptable political tactic to "out" gays in Washington?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What happened to the "private and personal" mantra of the Democrats from the 90's?

I thought we didn't care about a person's sexual preference? I thought we treated everyone fairly and wanted a 'color' blind society? Gays should be able to marry and gays should be able to adopt, but if gays want to keep their sex lives private, sorry can't do that unless your a Democrat?

It is nice to see that you aprove of destorying the lives of these staffers so some guy can make a statement about 'closet' gays.

I guess this means that in the future that if the Democrats ever put up a "closet" gay candidate it is open game for the right to "out" him?

I don't think outing random gay people is ok, but if he or she is backing anti-gay policies, I see them as fair game...hypocracy in politics is an effective way to attack people, and I don't personally see anything wrong with it.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What happened to the "private and personal" mantra of the Democrats from the 90's?

This isn't about Democrats - please stay on topic...

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What happened to the "private and personal" mantra of the Democrats from the 90's?

I thought we didn't care about a person's sexual preference? I thought we treated everyone fairly and wanted a 'color' blind society? Gays should be able to marry and gays should be able to adopt, but if gays want to keep their sex lives private, sorry can't do that unless your a Democrat?

It is nice to see that you aprove of destorying the lives of these staffers so some guy can make a statement about 'closet' gays.

I guess this means that in the future that if the Democrats ever put up a "closet" gay candidate it is open game for the right to "out" him?

It is like the "bad guy rassler" complaining to the ref about a eye gouge after having used it numerous times already. Rove uses every dirty, underhanded trick in the book, where is the outrage over that?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - the OP himself linked to a right-wing blog that posted the name and pictures of one of the congressional pages engaged in sexual IM chat with Mark Foley, but when someone else does it, it's "about the most disgusting thing" he has ever read. Cry me a river.

 

[Gaard]

What's with this guy?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

It is nice to see that you aprove of destorying the lives of these staffers so some guy can make a statement about 'closet' gays.

It's nice, in turn, to see that you approve of destroying the life of a former congressional page so that you can make a completely spurious point about the "liberal media."

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
So long as the particular minority person in question is a conservative or republican, they are fair game for the left. 'Uncle Tom' is the first phrase that comes to mind.

I think that is a disgusting attitude. Foley's "problem" is not that he is homosexual. The problem is he took advantage of his powerful position, and was hitting on male pages. Ethically, the situation would have been just as inappropriate if he was hitting on female pages. Any attempt to make this scandal about homosexuality instead of what it really is (abuse of power, sexual harrassment) is wrong and will have negative effects on the gay community.

First. My comment was not related to Foley. It was a declaritive statement of FACT aimed at the question posed by the OP. A statement which you so kindly backed up with this statement:

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I think it is acceptable for the homosexual activist community to "out" homosexual politicians who are voting for legislation that harms the interests of gay and lesbian people.

I happen to agree with your position on Foley but that has nothing to do with the OP. And by your own words, minority communities see nothing wrong with trashing members of their own community who don't see things the same as the majority in that community.

 

[BoomerD]

While I really don't give a sh!t if one of the members of congress is gay, I DO care if they lie about it...or hide it so they can get elected.
To me, it's still dishonest. Would I vote for someone who is openly gay? Probably not, but most people in the Democratic party are more liberal than I am. Then again, I'm not likely to vote for a candidate of color either, or a someone who is known for sleeping around while married.
Do any of these issues mean they'd be a less effective legislator? Nope, but I am entitled to my personal prejudices...as are we all.

Outting closeted gays is OK with me...especially republican gays, since the majority seem to support anti-gay measures...sounds pretty hypocritical to me...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is about the most disgusting thing I have ever read.
Has it now become an acceptable tactic in American politics to ?out? someone who may be gay but does not want that fact known publicly?

If you read the Foley thread I have been talking about the fact for days that timing behind the Foley story was a timed political act to smear the Republican Party.

You can stop right there. Anyone who bothers to read the trash you've posted in the other Foley thread will also see that your dissembling, distractive fingerpointing has been shot down and shredded so badly that your only recourse was to start this new round of pointing fingers anywhere and everywhere but at the issues at hand, and as in that thread, your entire premise in this thread is consumate BULLSH8!

The catalyst for the current state of Republican collapse is Mark Foley (R - Fl), and his predatory pedopheliac contacts with underage House pages is the underlying cause of the stain and stench (or smear, if you prefer) on the Republican party. Even you have admitted as much and denounced his behavior.

The larger issue facing the Republican party is the behavior of their leadership, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R - Il) and other top Republicans

• What did they know?
  
  [*]When did they know it?
  
  [*]What did they do about it?

From yesterday's Washington Post:

Staffer Cites Earlier Role by Hastert's Office
Confrontation With Foley Detailed

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 7, 2006

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his inappropriate social contact with male pages well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

The staff member said Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, met with the Florida Republican at the Capitol to discuss complaints about Foley's behavior toward pages. The alleged meeting occurred long before Hastert says aides in his office dispatched Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and the clerk of the House in November 2005 to confront Foley about troubling e-mails he had sent to a Louisiana boy.

The staff member's account buttresses the position of Foley's onetime chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, who said earlier this week that he had appealed to Palmer in 2003 or earlier to intervene, after Fordham's own efforts to stop Foley's behavior had failed. Fordham said Foley and Palmer, one of the most powerful figures in the House of Representatives, met within days to discuss the allegations.
.
.
(story continues)

This isn't the first story or the first link I and others have posted indicating that Hastert and other top Republicans knew about Foley's predatory approaches to underage pages. Posting the text of all of them would fill a twenty foot long page on the forums, but you can search through all the pages of the other thread to find them.

This is not a gay vs. straight issue anymore than it is an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans. It's about an adult member of Congress who preyed on juvenile House pages, and in so doing, betrayed the public trust of those who elected him to office and the personal trust of the parents of the parents of the juvenile victims, and it's about whether other members of Congress either ignored Foley's behavior or acted to cover it up.

WRONG IS WRONG, and the ONLY thing that matters is whether such accusations of real wrongdoing are true and supported by the evidence.

If it is proven that Hastert, or even his staff, had any indications or warnings about Foley's behavior six weeks, six months, a year or three years ago, and he did nothing, or worse, acted to cover it up, he is either so negligent that he's unfit to be a leader of anything, or he's criminally involved in attempting to conceal Foley's dispicable behavior for political gain, and he should be removed from office immediately. There is only one person to blame for that -- Hastert, himself. If it is proven that Hastert acted with others in that attempt, he's also part of a conspiracy to commit the same crime, and he, and anyone else who acted with him should be tried for both the underlying crime and the secondary conspiracy.

If anyone of either party knew about Foley's behavior and didn't take immediate action to stop him, they have further victimized both the pages and the American voters who entrusted them to honor their oaths to uphold the laws of the land and the integrity of the offices to which they were elected, and they cast a long, dark shadow on all the institutions of our democracy.

Democrats are not the cause of Foley's behavior, and no finger pointing references to any previous misdeeds by any other members of Congress of either party at any other time are relevant to THIS serious and troubling behavior by THIS member of Congress. Democrats are not the cause of any actions by any Republican members of congress to ignore or actively cover up Foley's behavior for political purposes. Neither are any other groups, gay or straight, "outing" gay members of Congress. They may have their own agendas, and you may not like it, but it has NOTHING to do with Foley's behavior or any Republican coverup that followed.

The same is true for anyone who now tries to distract, dissemble or otherwise shift or diffuse the blame for this sorry mess. They are as guilty as Foley, himself, and anyone who ignored or covered up the initial crimes. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[jackschmittusa]

I secind the comment about security. It is the first thing to come to mind. Anybody that has a secret that could ccompromise their job is a definite security risk.

 

[Craig234]

BoomerD, you won't vote for someone because they are gay or not white? Wow, just wow. That's an evil set of views you hold on that issue.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Craig234
BoomerD, you won't vote for someone because they are gay or not white? Wow, just wow. That's an evil set of views you hold on that issue.

Yeah Craig...I know...but if you read more carefully, I actually said:
"Would I vote for someone who is openly gay? Probably not, but most people in the Democratic party are more liberal than I am. Then again, I'm not likely to vote for a candidate of color either, or a someone who is known for sleeping around while married. "

I DO try to judge a candidate more by qualifications, but my personal prejudices creep into the decision making process from time to time...
I'm a life-long Democrat, and this coming election will possibly be the first time in my life I vote for someone other than Democrat (Kahleeforneeya gubernatorial race), but being Democrat doesn't mean I have to be liberal too...Something most people on the right forget. LOTS of Dems aren't very liberal...

 

[Craig234]

I don't see bigotry as something that is a liberal issue to avoid, though; liberals happen to take the lead on fighting the battle, but the issue itself is non-partisan.

The 'probably not' rather than 'will not' was hair-splitting I didn't see any value in going into - greatly reducing the willingness to support someone because of a biological trait is the same issue as being unwilling to.

I don't mean to attack you over it - but to point out two problems, one the unfairness to treat people worse over those traits along with the harm to society losing out on good people for office, and secondly the problem for you in being afflicted with that bigotry. Good luck in overcoming them for everyone's sake.

You don't want to vote for Phil Angiledes? Sorry to hear that too, I think he's a great democrat and just what the state needs now instead of the crooked, Enron-allied Schwarzeggar; unfortunately, he's probably losing.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I don't see bigotry as something that is a liberal issue to avoid, though; liberals happen to take the lead on fighting the battle, but the issue itself is non-partisan.

The 'probably not' rather than 'will not' was hair-splitting I didn't see any value in going into - greatly reducing the willingness to support someone because of a biological trait is the same issue as being unwilling to.

I don't mean to attack you over it - but to point out two problems, one the unfairness to treat people worse over those traits along with the harm to society losing out on good people for office, and secondly the problem for you in being afflicted with that bigotry. Good luck in overcoming them for everyone's sake.

You don't want to vote for Phil Angiledes? Sorry to hear that too, I think he's a great democrat and just what the state needs now instead of the crooked, Enron-allied Schwarzeggar; unfortunately, he's probably losing.

I despise Ah-Nold, but Angelides seems to be far worse to me...He's (IMO) way too liberal...The reports a while back on him handing out Mexican flags at a political rally in SoCal was just another "nail in the coffin" agains him. This state "Kow-tows" to the Mexicans, in hope of gaining another vote, and while I'm not particularly anti-immigrant, I am anti-ILLEGAL immigrant, and I AM against kissing their collective asses to get their votes, expecially in a manner like this. This is the USA, and if he'd have handed out American flags to what was apparently a heavily hispanic audience, IMO, that would have been fine, (although he'd probably been run out of the auditorium as racist) but handing out Mexican flags to an audience in the "good ol USA" pisses me off...Just can't vote for someone who seems to support the Mexicanization of Kahleeforneeya...Mexifornia indeed...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
[*]What did they know?

[*]When did they know it?

[*]What did they do about it?[/list]

I agree. However, the same questions need to be posed and answered to the Democrats and particularly the George Soros-funded left wing group CREW which apparently had these messages as early as April.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
[*]What did they know?

[*]When did they know it?

[*]What did they do about it?[/list]

I agree. However, the same questions need to be posed and answered to the Democrats and particularly the George Soros-funded left wing group CREW which apparently had these messages as early as April.

Apparently??? I'd like to see any credible links to show they did. Hannity and others fomenting on Faux News and accusations from tinfoil beany sites like worldnetdaily and spewsmax don't count as credible. Show us something real, or drop it.

So far, the finger pointing blame shifterers have named sneaky Democrats, Bill Clinton, George Soros, the "liberal media," and anyone else they with a buzz word name they can point at. ABC's Brian Ross, who broke the story, says his source was a Republican. The Florida papers that said they had heard about the emails said they got them from a Republican source, but what they had was not convincing enough for them to run with it.

Even as Hastert was forgetting that, "The buck stops here." is a quote from Harry Truman (D - Mo), he was pointing fingers at "Democratic operatives" and ABC News:

Hastert dodges Foley heat, denies report of repeated warnings

By Rick Pearson and Mike Dorning
Tribune staff reporters
Published October 4, 2006, 10:26 PM CDT

WASHINGTON -- A defiant House Speaker Dennis Hastert fought Wednesday to hold on to his leadership post while fractures appeared among his lieutenants and a former senior aide to Mark Foley said he repeatedly had warned Hastert's top aide about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward underage pages more than two years ago.

In an interview with the Tribune on Wednesday night, Hastert said that he had no thoughts of resigning and he blamed ABC News and Democratic operatives for the mushrooming scandal that threatens his tenure as speaker and Republicans' hold on power in the House.

"No. Look, I've talked to our members," Hastert said. "Our members are supportive. I think that [resignation] is exactly what our opponents would like to have happen?that I'd fold my tent and others would fold our tent and they would sweep the House."

When asked about a groundswell of discontent among the GOP's conservative base over his handling of the issue, Hastert said: "I think the base has to realize after awhile, who knew about it? Who knew what, when? When the base finds out who's feeding this monster, they're not going to be happy. The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros."

He went on to suggest that operatives aligned with former President Bill Clinton knew about the allegations and were perhaps behind the disclosures in the closing weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections, but he offered no hard proof.

"All I know is what I hear and what I see," the speaker said. "I saw Bill Clinton's adviser, Richard Morris, was saying these guys knew about this all along. If somebody had this info, when they had it, we could have dealt with it then."
.
.
(story continues)

This is from the same lard ass whose first announcement was that he had only heard about the emails when the story broke on ABC. That claim has since been refuted by several other top Republicans and their chiefs of staff.

Hastert has yet to step forward and take unequivocal responsibility for anything, even the credibility of his own claims about any dirty tricks or suppression of evidence by any Democrats, or Clinton, or Soros or anyone else.

Even assuming any of his wild claims are true, it STILL doesn't matter. As soon as the Republican leadership had any hint of Foley's perverse actions toward the pages, they are the majority in command of the House, and it was their responsiblity at least to investigate the charges. If they don't put the safety and best interests of the juveniles entrusted to their care ahead of political considerations, they're aiding and abetting Foley's crimes, and they're as guilty as he is.

Unless you've got sources Hastert doesn't, you probably don't want to shove your own credibility down the same sh8hole he has. :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
I have no problem with politicians being outed if their lifestyle/orientation and their voting history are in not in concert. If someone openly opposes gays and gay rights then is found out to be a self-loathing hypocrite, then they are fair game IMO.

Exactly, this Foley character is no Barney Frank.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
[*]What did they know?

[*]When did they know it?

[*]What did they do about it?[/list]

I agree. However, the same questions need to be posed and answered to the Democrats and particularly the George Soros-funded left wing group CREW which apparently had these messages as early as April.

And so did Hastert's office and just about everyone else. So what? Do you think the Democrats are supposed to be policing the GOP when the GOP won't even do it? Please...

 

[DealMonkey]

Furthermore, it appears the GOP was made aware of Foley's disturbing pattern of behavior back in 2000! We keep getting further and further back and Hastert looks like a huge liar based on the "timeline" he released last week.

Unbelievable.

Kolbe Saw Foley's Messages In 2000

Another Republican congressman knew of disgraced former representative Mark Foley's inappropriate Internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about his communications.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. Last week, when the Foley matter erupted, a Kolbe staff member suggested to the former page that he take the matter to the clerk of the House, Karen Haas, said Kolbe's press secretary, Korenna Cline.

The revelation pushes back by at least five years the date when a member of Congress has acknowledged learning of Foley's questionable behavior. A timeline issued by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) suggested that the first lawmakers to know, Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), the chairman of the House Page Board, and Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), became aware of "over-friendly" e-mails only last fall. It also expands the universe of players in the drama beyond members, either in leadership or on the page board,

A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The Washington Post under condition that they are not reprinted. But Cline denied the source's characterization, saying only that the messages had made the former page feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, she said, "corrective action" was taken. Cline said she still has not yet determined whether that action went beyond Kolbe's confrontation with Foley.

[...]

Linkage

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
And so did Hastert's office and just about everyone else. So what? Do you think the Democrats are supposed to be policing the GOP when the GOP won't even do it? Please...

We are not alone

Foley Fallout Reflected In Polls
53 Percent Want Democrats To Win Control Of Congress In New Poll

Oct. 8, 2006

(CBS/AP) More than half of Americans don't believe the House GOP leadership in the Mark Foley online message scandal and an upstate N.Y. congressman, once engaged in a tight race for re-election, is now faced with a double-digit deficit, according to two new polls released Saturday.

Fifty-two percent of those surveyed in a Newsweek poll say they believe House Speaker Dennis Hastert was aware of the former Florida Rep. Foley's inappropriate messages to teenage House pages and tried to cover them up. Hastert has said he was not aware of Foley's inappropriate conduct until the story broke publicly late last month.

Also, 42 percent say they trust Democrats to do a better job of handling moral values, while 36 percent say they trust Republicans more.

The Newsweek survey says 53 percent of Americans want the Democrats to win control of Congress next month, including ten percent of Republicans. That compares to just 35 percent who want the GOP to retain power.

Meanwhile, Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., is trailing behind his Democratic opponent after being connected to the scandal involving Foley.

The poll, performed by Zogby International for The Buffalo News, showed businessman Jack Davis leading Reynolds 48 percent to 33 percent.

The poll, which surveyed 402 likely voters in the 26th Congressional District on Wednesday and Thursday, found 325 respondents were following the Foley story and 57 percent disapproved of how Reynolds was handling the situation. Only 25 percent approved.

Democrats have been trying to capitalize on the negative momentum of Republicans. On Saturday, Democrat Patty Wetterling, a candidate for an open House seat in Minnesota, continued the attack.

The Democrats could take the House, the Senate or both. In the House it would take a gain of 15 of the 435 seats being elected, and a gain of six of the 33 Senate seats at stake would swing control of that chamber to the Democrats.

Reynolds said fellow Congressman Rodney Alexander told him last spring about "overly friendly" e-mails from Foley to a teenage former Congressional page. Though Reynolds said he didn't see the e-mails, he then alerted his boss, House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Foley resigned Sept. 29 as it was revealed he had sent sexually explicit instant messages to other former pages.

Only 2 percent of those surveyed in last week's poll said they view Reynolds more favorably since news of the scandal broke, while 50 percent said they think less favorably of him.

Those whose opinions remain unchanged stand at 47 percent. The poll had a margin for error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

In a new ad campaign defending himself, Reynolds said referring to Foley, "Nobody's angrier and more disappointed that I didn't catch his lies."

The television commercial appeared Friday on stations in Buffalo and Rochester. "I trusted that others had investigated. Looking back, more should have been done, and for that, I am sorry," Reynolds said.

Reynolds, head of the House Republican election effort, has come under attack from Democrats who say he did too little to protect a page from Foley.

In an editorial board meeting Friday with The Buffalo News, Reynolds said he could not remember several details about his involvement, including exactly when he learned of Foley's e-mails to teenage congressional pages or when he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert about them.

However, Reynolds said Sept. 30 that he had told Hastert months ago about concerns he had about Foley's messages.

"In relation to what everyone knew when he found out in the spring, (Reynolds) took the appropriate action for what he knew at the time," Reynolds spokesman L.D. Platt said. "But knowing what he does now, he clearly feels there is a little bit of 'parent guilt."'

Reynolds already was in a tough re-election race against businessman Jack Davis, his rival from 2004.

Reynolds aides said his campaign will spend about $200,000 on the new commercial.

"I never saw a single e-mail," Reynolds says in the ad. "Not one."

Reynolds said his position in the House leadership has not been compromised.

He also told the newspaper editorial board his former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, never discussed with him any concerns about Foley, even though Fordham previously worked for Foley for a decade. Fordham resigned this past week.

Fordham said in an Associated Press interview that he warned Hastert's aides more than three years ago that Foley's behavior toward pages was troublesome. That was long before GOP leaders acknowledged learning of the problem.

Fordham's claim drew a swift, unequivocal denial from Hastert's chief of staff. "What Kirk Fordham said did not happen," Scott Palmer said through a spokesman.

©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Hastert's credibility is now somewhere south of nowhere.

 

[BoomerD]

So...with this latest GOP scandal dragging their credibility into the muck, anyone want to guess what the next OMFG! thing will be to distract the 2 minute attention span of the average voter and make them forget about this?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

It is nice to see that you aprove of destorying the lives of these staffers so some guy can make a statement about 'closet' gays.

It's nice, in turn, to see that you approve of destroying the life of a former congressional page so that you can make a completely spurious point about the "liberal media."

Don, I didn't out or identify the guy, I posted the link to back up my point with evidence. Otherwise some people on here would have attacked me for not providing evidence.

BTW: most of the sites that named this guy by name have taken the name down and apologized for naming him. They realized that all the had to do was show that he was over 18 at the time of the sex IMs, which could be done without naming him.

Ps. Now that the FBI is on the case the guys name would have come out sooner or later, if you want to blame someone for getting attaching this guys name to this scandal complain about the peope who took this IM and gave it to the press. If this guy and Foley didn't leak the IM to the press, then someone else took their private and personal conversation and gave it to the press without permission of either of them. Complain about that person.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

It is nice to see that you aprove of destorying the lives of these staffers so some guy can make a statement about 'closet' gays.

It's nice, in turn, to see that you approve of destroying the life of a former congressional page so that you can make a completely spurious point about the "liberal media."

Don, I didn't out or identify the guy, I posted the link to back up my point with evidence. Otherwise some people on here would have attacked me for not providing evidence.

BTW: most of the sites that named this guy by name have taken the name down and apologized for naming him. They realized that all the had to do was show that he was over 18 at the time of the sex IMs, which could be done without naming him.

Ps. Now that the FBI is on the case the guys name would have come out sooner or later, if you want to blame someone for getting attaching this guys name to this scandal complain about the peope who took this IM and gave it to the press. If this guy and Foley didn't leak the IM to the press, then someone else took their private and personal conversation and gave it to the press without permission of either of them. Complain about that person.

Pathetic. You aided and abetted the page's outing for solely political reasons (indeed, contrary to your post, you outed AND identified him as far as this board is concerned), and you don't even have the balls to admit it. You helped ruin his life, to the extent the outing has that effect, and you can't even acknowledge that it's the same thing you claim to be outraged by.

You are, at best, a marginal poster, a poor ethicist and worse than useless as a logician.

 

[ProfJohn]

Can we get back to the topic on hand, Which has nothing at all to do with Foley, but whether it is ok for this radical gay web site to start posting a list of "closet' gays who are not elected, but happen to work for Republicans.

Go back to the OP, read what I wrote, or click on the link and check out the site yourself.
I am not trying to distract from Foley, I am concerned about these kinds of personal attacks on innocent people who are just doing a job.
Check out this nice comment on their forum:

This is the way I see it: each of these gay men, for siding with the Republican anti-gay agenda have contributed to teenagers being beat up at school for being suspected of being gay. Any of these hypocrites worry about those lives they destroyed? No. Each of these gay men who side with the Republican anti-gay agenda contribute to gay teens suicide attempts and suicide completeions. Do they worry about the lives they destroyed then? No. They care about advancing their careers. Each of these gay men who side with the Republican anti-gay agenda contribute to i love you bashings every year. Do they care about the lives that are destroyed then? No. They only care about advancing their careers. Each of these gay men who side with the Republican anti-gay agenda contribute to the job, housing and public accomodations discrimination that gays are faced with everyday. Do they care about the lives they destroyed then? No. They only care about advancing their careers then.

Why should anyone care about their lives being destroyed?

blogactive link
So basically if you are gay and in the closet you are to blame for gays being beat up, committing suicide, "i love you bashing" and job and housing discrimination. Nice.

If it is ok to ?out? a gay because he worked for a Republican does it become to report when a Democrat staffer gets arrested for not paying his taxes, or DWI, or not paying child support etc etc? 40 years ago papers wouldn?t have reported if the President was banging Marylyn Monroe, but now it is ok to go after congressional staffers??!?! What the hell are we coming too? Nothing is off limits now as long as you can get political benefit out of it? These are staffers we are talking about, not people who put their names on the ballots, but people who are just doing a job.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can we get back to the topic on hand, Which has nothing at all to do with Foley, but whether it is ok for this radical gay web site to start posting a list of "closet' gays who are not elected, but happen to work for Republicans.

Nice attempt. You can't feign this much outrage when you have personally done the EXACT SAME THING you claim to be so upset about. Not everyone here is as lacking in attention span as you, and we're not so blind that we can't see your hypocrisy.

My own feeling is that these people's sexuality is their own business, but to the extent they've been involved in supporting legislation limiting gay rights, or otherwise spoken out about the immorality of homosexuality, their own homosexuality is fair game.

If it is ok to ?out? a gay because he worked for a Republican does it become to report when a Democrat staffer gets arrested for not paying his taxes, or DWI, or not paying child support etc etc?

You're better situated than most to answer this, since you're the only one in this thread who has actually outed a gay Republican staffer. It seems to me it's completely fair game to report on legal infractions by politicians (hence the fact I think it's legit to observe that the President and VP have three DUIs between them).