Posted on 10/07/2006 1:35:46 PM PDT by rface
On Tuesday night's "Evening News," Gloria Borger said this:
"One senior House Republican tells CBS that there's a lot of anger at what he describes as 'a network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the speaker a disservice.'"
The New Republic's Michael Crowley picks up on Borger's comment. He argues that "it's becoming clear that some people on Capitol Hill are promoting a storyline that involves gay Republican staffers--apparently led by [Tom Reynolds's chief of staff Kirk] Fordham--covering up for Mark Foley." Crowley suggests "maybe this is how Dennis Hastert and his compatriots are explaining themselves to the base."
He also notes David Corn's report on "The List" – a document being passed around political circles of high-level Republican congressional aides who are gay.
Corn, a liberal, says he will not publish The List, even though he has a copy. Here's his conclusion:
Let's be clear about one thing: the Mark Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is. But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets--even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen? The men on The List might want to think hard about these questions--as they probably already have--for if I have a copy of The List, there's a good chance it will be appearing soon on a website near everyone......
NEXT =>
The List: (found on the left of the link, part way down...)
THE LIST
Operating since July of 2004, telling you the truth about hypocrisy in the gov't.
US Representatives
Rep. Ed Schrock (VA)
Rep. David Drier (CA)
Rep. James McCrery (LA)
Rep. Mark Foley (FL)
.
US Senators.
.
Sen Barbara Mikulski (MD)
.
Senior GOP Staff
.
Jay Timmons, NRSC
Dan Gurley, RNC
Jay Banning, RNC
.
Senior Senate Staffers
.
Robert Traynham, Santorum
Jonathan Tolman, Inhofe
Kirk Fordham, Martinez
Dirk Smith, Lott
John Reid, Allen
Paul Unger, Allen
Linus Catignani, Frist
.
Senior House Staffers
.
Jim Conzelman, Oxley
Lee Cohen, Hart
Robert O'Conner, King
Pete Meachum, Brown-Waite
.
Bush Staff
.
Israel Hernandez
Jeff Berkowitz
.
Local Officials
.
Vincent Gentile, NYC
.
The rest...
.
Ed Koch, NYC Mayor
Jennifer Helms-Knox, Judge
Armstrong Williams, Radio host
Matt Drudge, Headline writer
Steve Kreseski, MD Gov.
Chip DiPaula, MD Gov.
Lee LaHaye, CWA
John Schlafley, Eagle Forum
Where's the Demonrat list?
I want to know because quite frankly I think it is a problem to have a homosexual in public office.
It is easy a person who is on this list need only say they are not a homosexual. The end.
If someone is falsly on the list they they should sue the publisher for impuning their character.
It Tom Cruise can sue everyone and their brother in law for accusing him of being a homosexual, then so should these people force the accuser to prove the list. Of course then Barbara Mikulski gets to go on the stand and swear UNDER OATH she is not a homosexual.
Perhaps not that new, but I was really unaware how many pro-homosexuals are here in FR. That is definitely NEW to me. I also did not know about Allens' alledged connections to our friends... I thought he was a "full fledge" conservative.
Buy hey, anyone has the right to like or support homosexuals, just as I have the right to dislike them. That is fair, isn't it?
Also, the word HYPOCRACY is thrown a lot around here from all sides. Well, I think this list should be out in the open, so we can stamp the hypocrisy out right.
the list is bipartisan.
the homosexuals covering for each other is also bi partisan.
The fact is homosexuals protected each other from any investigations by covering for each other.
I want to know why was Nancy Pelosi in the loop with knowledge of the IMs?
Well, IF it hadn't already come out, it will now. LOL You KNOW the losers over at the RATS site read FR.
It's funny - I didn't expect to see YOU here.
(you are supposed to laugh now)
That's because you are more interested in PR (Personal Responsibility) than in PC (Political Correctness). It's as it should be, but you're never going to convince a Democrat. Ever. They would have to give up on every one of their beliefs to make it so.
"Liberal gays loathe gay republicans like no other."
Agree, although I'd add African-American Republicans to that list.
They better leave our homos alone.
I don't know what you mean by "lovers." Being Pro-homosexual does not mean you are necessarily a homo... it just means you support them for whatever reasons. or not?
I have my reasons why I don not support homosexuals or homosexuality.
The list is for CLOSETED homosexuals.
The homosexual activists want to eliminate cover for homosexuals to be able to vote for conservative issues.
For example Foley performed the truly unforgivable sin of voting FOR the marriage amendment. That upset homosexual far more that their faux upset over sexual inuendo with children.
I think lesbians are often titilating, aren't they?
I think that is the point of the list -- to hurt Republicans. This will backfire against the Dems big time. The public will see this as a dirty trick, a democrat ugly plan to 'out' Republicans. It is beneath contempt. That is why Pelosi doesn't want it to get out.
There are many different kinds of conservatives, ElPatriota. The conservatives who take a live-and-let-live stance on homosexuals are more in the libertarian camp. All conservatives find liberal attempts at forcing acceptance of homosexuality, by attacking religion and squelching free speech in order to demonstrate "tolerance" of homosexuals, to be anathema. It's the very opposite of what any conservative, in any camp, would stand for.
What we have here is a very audacious attempt at driving a wedge between key camps or voting blocs who support Republicans. Evangelicals and other staunch values voters are supposed to react with horror and abandon the party, because some Republicans do not immediately reject homosexuals for employment on their staff on purely moral grounds. Stop and think about what is at stake, though. Putting the group back into power, that sees absolutely nothing wrong with what Mark Foley did, other than the fact that he didn't openly embrace his homosexuality and he was a Republican, will be far worse.
Maybe we could make a Free Republic 'list'.
From the article: Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is.
Who & where? All I've seen is stuff from leftists saying that family value conservatives think this way.
Because I don't hate every homo doesn't mean I approve of their life-style ... because I don't, but I am not going to hate every person I meet because I don't approve of how they live thier lives ....
I don't hate drunks, but I don't approve. I don't hate liberals, but I think they are misguided. I don't hate loudmouthed a**holes (well, that's getting close)....
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.