Poor Anderson Cooper, first he's on the cover of "Out", now this.
Posted on 01/06/2010 10:00:50 PM PST by DesertRenegade
Congressman Mark Kirk, one of the Republican candidates for Senate to fill Barack Obama’s seat, has been “outed” by one of his primary opponents. Chicago newspapers are rushing to condemn the accuser/candidate. So are Republican leaders in the state. They are appalled by the accusation and Congressman Kirk’s campaign is declaring it “demeaning to the political process.”
I don’t remember any such outrage at the accusation of Governor Mark Sanford for alleged adultery. I seem to remember newsmen and cameras running to South America simply to confirm or deny. I don’t remember outrage over Senator Larry Craig and his “outing” for bathroom flirtation, just more “investigating” to find the truth. The candidate who “outed” Kirk is the least credible of those in the primary. His record of outrageous claims makes it impossible to take him seriously much less believe what he says. But in this case, press and Republicans alike are rushing to pooh-pooh what, in spite of the weakness of the messenger, has been the topic of discussion in Washington and elsewhere for quite some time. So, where is the reporting? Where are the cameras? The gleaning of records? The follow up on accusations?
Republicans did the same thing in the Mark Foley/Congressional page scandal. Republican leaders knew about Foley but for some inexplicable reason, covered for him. Do they want to repeat the same here? Surely, if Kirk is the candidate in the general election, the Democrats will not be so benevolent. It was reported in the press that Kirk had a lengthy meeting with Nancy Pelosi before voting for Cap and Trade. His subsequent excuses for voting for this economically disastrous measure were vague and contradictory. Was he blackmailed into support? And if he was, then how could we be sure he wouldn’t be in the future?
There are rumors of threats from Rahm Emmanuel of “outing” Kirk. It has been reported that a sexual harassment lawsuit was filed against Kirk by another male staffer when he worked for Congressman John Porter. Is this true? And if so, could this be used against him to garner another bad vote? It is reported that Kirk has been living with another Congressman, also strongly rumored to be gay. Is that true? Is anyone investigating this? Are we just waiting for the Democratic opponent, Alexi Giannoulias to pull out the long knives and rush to victory in November … or for Mark Kirk to take the seat and vote like any other Leftist in the chamber?
American voters have a right to know if candidates are gay. Why?
1) Because Kevin Jennings, Obama’s Safe School Czar, who has lived out his endorsement of sex between adult men and boys, has received tacit approval by elected officials. The openly homosexual Jennings has made his life’s work “Queering Elementary Education.” The president appointed him while Congress looked the other way. Safe, indeed.
2) Because the Hate Crimes law, which brings a fuller weight of law enforcement upon anyone perpetrating a crime against a homosexual and brings more punishment upon those who would harm a gay man as opposed to a grandmother or a young child, was established by elected officials. And because, if it follows the path of Hate Crimes in other countries, it will be the precursor to “Hate Speech” legislation—punishing any verbal objection to homosexuality in media, on billboards, and even in churches. And that too will be decided by elected officials.
3) Because homosexual marriage and civil unions and domestic partnerships are the stuff of frequent legislative decisions and are being foisted upon the American public, regardless of objections, by their own elected officials.
4) Because we are at war and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a promise President Barack Obama has made to the gay community in spite of the fact that military experts from the top down have argued continually that open homosexuality will harm unit cohesion and have a detrimental effect on morale. And who will repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?” Our elected officials.
It’s not good enough for Congressman Mark Kirk to claim his “outing” “demeans the political process.” He should answer the following questions and Republicans and press must follow through to confirm or deny his answers:
1) Are you gay?
2) Have you been living with another homosexual Congressman?
3) Were you sued by another male staffer in John Porter’s office for sexual harassment?
If the answers are “yes” then Illinois voters who embrace homosexual rights can give him the opportunity to represent those rights in the U.S. Senate. If the answer is “no” and subsequent investigation confirms it, the worry that he can be blackmailed or threatened will be removed.
This much we know about Kirk: He voted both for Hate Crimes and ENDA. Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual lobbying organization in the country has given him 85 percent, 75 percent and 88 percent approval rating on his votes in three consecutive congresses. Mike Rogers, the infamous homosexual “outer” of gay Republicans has stated clearly that he has not gone after Kirk because Kirk has supported the homosexual community’s issues.
He has not supported the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But if he is gay, he would have a vested interest in this particular issue. As a military reservist, he would have to resign his commission if he should openly declare. Kirk’s military service has been strongly appealing to conservatives even though his military voting record is inconsistent. He voted against the surge in Iraq and against enhanced interrogation methods for terrorists, limiting the methods to the Army Field Manual. And if he is “blackmail-able” how can we be assured he won’t change his position on this or any other measure?
Homosexuality has now been mainstreamed and de-stigmatized. Any reason not to be open and honest has now been removed. If a candidate is gay the American voter has the right to know for all of the above reasons.
Congressman Mark Kirk, please answer these questions. Republican leadership, if you are covering up things the public should know, stop or you will lose even more credibility with your base. And press? Do your job. Your duty is not to defend a lifestyle; it is to report the truth.
I think that gays have more than shown that they TOTALLY INCOMPETENT in leadership roles - starting with the head of DHS, Barney Frank, David Souter, and numerous others, at all levels. They simply cannot be trusted, and in the case of Republicans, they will sell out the party IMMEDIATELY upon reaching whatever level they strive for.
The same CANNOT be said, in general, about the leadership qualities of straight people, even those morally challenged.
Yes, we have a right, just as we have the right to know if one is pro-life or pro-choice, etc.
Poor Anderson Cooper, first he's on the cover of "Out", now this.
Everything is a ‘right’ to liberals from dolphins, fish to healthcare. Besides, even if we tell gays not to come out, they’re the ones bursting out of the gate regardless.
You’re really pissing me off.
You left out McGreevey.
“You’re really pissing me off.
You left out McGreevey.”
Crap, I there’s no human alive that can name ALL of them. The hard part is naming one that is somewhat competent and not ideologically driven.
Yes, because a homosexual views every single thing through the prism of his/ her perverse sexuality.
That perverse sexuality is the kingpin of their entire identity, and it would obviously affect their political decision making.
Look at Adam Lambert.
He is a a flaming homosexual before he is anything else. It is more important for him to display his perversion than it is to display his “singing talent”.
This is why I believe that homosexuality is in fact a mental illness.
Being that gayness is a mental disease. Yes, we do have a right to know.
Is he still in the Navy Reserve? I know he used to drill at Great Lakes? That could be interesting.
If you a politician that has been charged with harrassment the people deserve to know.
If you are gay, with respect to their wishes for privacy, it depends. You don’t have to step in front of a microphome and declare it before stating a policy agenda. But if someone asked you, would you tell the truth? Even if the person were a news anchor live on air? My point is the same as the above author’s. We don’t need more poliician’s who are susceptible to blackmail. If you take care to hide it from the public’s notice I must conclude you are subjecting yourself to potential blackmail as a politician.
Furthermore, if affects your vote on legislation whether blackmail is involved or not people deserve to know. They deserve to know the reason why a politician votes as they do. Whether it’s a belief in small government, socialism, Christainity, marriage..if a vote is taken in the U.S. Congress on an issue they deserve to know why that vote was made.
Entertainers can speak up or not. Polticians are oo susceptible to lobbying, bribes and blackmail to endorse them holding skeletons in their closet.
Personally, other then possible harrassment issue, I’m more concerned with him being far too Liberal for my tastes. I understand it’s Illinois, still do not care. What reason other then being another “R” is there to elect him? A real question. I’d like to know.
If a candidate is openly and QUIETLY gay, I am fine with him/her. It bothers me far more when they are living a fake life to fool the public. No, I do not want to OUT them, but it shows a character that is wont to deceive, and I wonder what else they will deceive us about.
The down low is a dangerous lie. Those men are potentially bringing disease home to their “wives.”
It doesn’t matter to me what a legislator does in his bedroom.
It matters to me what he does in the legislature.
It is up to the citizen, and to the press (although they ignore this duty) to check the individual’s history of voting and activism.
My guess is there are plenty of closeted homosexual republicans who, because they really do know what these people are like, vote against gay “rights”. And they keep their sexual life secret not only for politics, but because they hold to the old adage it’s private business.
What about the gay republicans who keep it quiet and don’t support the gay agenda? Should we throw them out, too?
Yes. They’re asking for my vote while I’m asking for standards. My community. My country. The world, in fact. I would not vote for a homosexual.
Hillbuzz has been warning Republicans about this for a while now.
While we’re on this topic I think movies should have to carry homosexual content warnings like all the other crap
I am sick of renting a drama and getting gay-ed to death.
so much of it is purely gratuitous
Kirks opponent is also running an ad on Chicago radio where he says that while Mark Kirk is not a pedophile himself, “he is a defacto pedophile” for supporting a convicted pedophile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.