February 15, 2005

It's About Aunt Toms, Stupid

from - smijer

I have spoken out repeatedly against the practice of "outing" closeted gays in the Republican party. (here, and here). I continue to stand by my words. But I have a few things to say to those folks on the right are suddenly horrified about the "outing" of a male prositute who apparently played a medium-sized role in the Bush media take-over.

First thing is the title of this post: it's about the Aunt Toms, stupid. The Republican party in the last few years have made a stand in favor of apartheid for gays. If and when gay people support Republican candidates who are active in pushing the pro-apartheid agenda, they are liable for criticism on the grounds of aiding in the repression of their own people. That's pretty simple. I don't feel it's right to go after the individual instead of going after the apartheid, but don't pretend we are talking about the politics of personal destruction here. There's a word for that: facile. Another word is dishonest.

Second thing is that (as one commenter put it in John's comments) - the Gannon/Guckert scandal isn't just about outing a gay person. It's about outing a hooker. As far as I'm concerned, when the Party of Moral Purity is enlisting hookers of any variety to participate in their media coup - that's news. The fact that he is a man-on-man hooker is just another turd in the face of James Dobson's party.

Third thing is that this isn't just about whether he's a hooker. It's about the fact that he was never a journalist, until McClellan needed a life-line. He had no business in a press room. He wasn't a journalist. He's a hooker-not-a-journalist.

Fourth thing is that the White House bent and/or broke the rules to help him conceal his identity to keep their Dobson worshippers from figuring out that their media plant was also a man-on-man hooker. Women who are married and legally have their husbands' last names are not allowed to be credentialed under their maiden name, even if that is the name they use professionally. That's how seriously the White House takes the rule that you must be credentialed under your own name. Gannon/Guckert was credentialed under a complete alias. If nothing else, routine security had to have unearthed this simple fact.

Fifth thing - I almost forgot (thanks to "none" in John's comments again) - JG was involved in some way in the criminal outing of an undercover CIA agent. What way? Who knows. We aren't likely to find out any time soon, either. It remains an issue.

So, please, please, please, quit trying to persuade people that this is about whether he is gay or whether he is conservative. It's dishonest, and it's only going to work on stupid people. Do you guys really want to be the party of liars and dummies?


Posted by smijer at February 15, 2005 07:45 AM

Pretty good discussion of this going on over at The Conservative Voice.

How does a hooker get a job as "Washington Bureau Chief" for a news organization funded entirely by Republican party activists?

univar.jpg Posted by Buck on February 15, 2005 09:47 AM
Link to comment

I like how you guys compartmentalize...

This is all about national security and the integrity of the press, but Clinton was all about sex. Right?

univar.jpg Posted by John Cole on February 15, 2005 10:42 AM
Link to comment

Absolutely not. Remember, at the time, the Democrats were the party of Missionary Position Only. Remember that was what they were known for at the time, how they wanted to outlaw such sexual flourishes as hummers. Yet Clinton was caught accepting a BJ! Also, you remember how he was passing names of covert agents to Monica? So that was an issue, too. There's also the fact that Monica, prior to becoming a White House intern, was actually a waitress at Waffle House, and she had no business in the White House in the first place. And remember how Clinton paid pundits in the media to deflect attention away from his affairs?

Now, if the U.S. Senate insisted on paying a special prosecutor millions of tax-payer dollars to hound Gannon about his sexual life until he was finally backed into a corner where he prevaricated about it under oath, then I could understand the comparison. But we can deduce from the fact that this will never happen that obviously the JG story doesn't merit the kind of public outrage that Clinton's story did.

univar.jpg Posted by smijer on February 15, 2005 11:08 AM
Link to comment
Comments for this entry are closed. Please leave your notes on a more recent comment thread.