It hasn’t been a good week for IL GOP Representative Mark Kirk, first his long time claim to having won an award for his military service was found to be false, now BlogActive’s Mike Rogers (of Larry Craig fame) claims to have the proof to out him as a closeted gay man. Mike Rogers has had this proof for a number of years, but decided not to “out” the Republican Congressman due to his relatively positive votes against GLBT discrimination. This protection of the Representative’s closet came to an end when he joined the majority of his Republican Congressional colleagues (including the WI delegation) in voting against the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Meanwhile his Democratic opponent, Alexi Giannoulias was interviewed by Towelroad and clearly stated his positions for equality in the military, in marriage and in employment in that interview.
Who would you rather see in office a closeted man playing to his right wing base while denying his own sexuality or a man willing to support equality for all?
This kind of thing is tragic to me. To think of a man so incredibly brainwashed he fights against the rights of people like himself. It must be horrible to loathe what you are. It’s like an abused child convinced by horrible parents that he is in fact worthless.
Thanks for your comment BofCudahy. I suspect that Mark Kirk will regret his vote on this one for quite some time. It has led to the Human Rights Campaign to endorse his opponent Alexi Giannoulias, an endorsement that could have been his if he’d continued with his support of GLBT issues.
Three cheers for blackmailing a Congressman!
Hip Hip Hooray… Woo hoo hoo… spill.. baby.. spill Truth.. wins.. out..
Wasn’t there some line liberals liked to use in the 90s… what was it now… oh, “the politics of personal destruction.”
I don’t support outing people or blackmail but there’s something very wrong about someone attacking civil rights to begin with, much less civil rights for people like oneself.
Quite honestly it’s not a huge concern of mine what happens with DADT either way. I’m fine with repeal if it can be done feasibly. But to play devil’s advocate, the military’s primary mission should be to win wars, not make sure it is politically correct.
If you were one of the ~14,000 troops that have been discharged under DADT you’d care quite a bit about the policy. As a taxpayer, the $1 B plus spent & wasted on this policy should be enough to get you more in line with the elimination of DADT. As a supporter of the best way to win a war, I would think you’d want the best military force to be supporting this effort. This would include retaining & motivating all the Arab linguists, award winning pilots, doctors, nurses, mechanics etc. who have been forced out of the military due to their sexual orientation regardless of the skills they have or the service they provide to their country.
I already said I basically agree if the military is on board and it can be done in such a way that it can be accomplished reasonably and not disrupt the primary goal of the military.
I am curious though if you can provide evidence of how many gay Arab linguists were forced out.
“In it’s 17 years of existence, it’s estimated that $360 million to $1.3 billion dollars has been spent implementing DADT, and resulted in the dismissal of more than 60 Arabic linguists, 7 fired at once after 9/11.”
http://gltnewsnow.com/2010/05/14/linguists-return-home-from-national-effort-to-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell-in-nations-capitol/
Thank you for this information. The policy seems especially egregious in this instance of linguists, considering it’s not a ‘barracks’ situation where one might expect more contentious issues might arise.
I’m not big on outing either, but I make an exception in the case of gay people like Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, George Rekers, Mark Kirk, etc. who are using their positions of power to rail against and to deny the rights of others. I’d add that this same philosophy fits with “straight” people like David Vitter, Mark Sanford, Ensign, Vince Fossalla, etc who are out there pushing an agenda of family values and religious rectitude, while bonking women who aren’t their wifes or playing with prostitutes on the side. You can’t have it both ways.
It isn’t my concern nor should it be the concern of anyone, what they do outside their marital or religious bounds. Where it becomes a concern is when their public actions have led to curtailment of the rights of others, while they themselves feel they can play with impunity.
So just to be clear – you’re position is that a person’s private life should be private…Except if you disagree with their politics.
Nope. It has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with hypocrisy and denial of self. If you are out there fighting to remove or deny rights for others, while you yourself are doing the very thing you so despise, then you have no rights to privacy on that issue. Reker and his rent boy, Haggard and his paid male prostitute, Vitter and his prostitutes, Sanford and his mistress, Ensign and his mistress that he tried to buy off, Craig and his wide stance denial, Fossalla and his two families… on and on. Quite frankly I don’t care what they do in private, but what I do care about is whether their positions of power or platforms for shaping opinions & laws have or are being used to negatively impact the lives of others while they rail against the very things they enjoy so much themselves.
If you are going to get on the religious right, family values mountain top and shout your beliefs to everyone, you better be living that life. If you are in the reserves like Mark Kirk and don’t vote for DADT while you yourself are gay, that is a big disconnect. If you are on the pulpit condemning gays and lesbians while you are out getting a massage with a happy ending from a male, you’ve got a major problem and one that should be open to outing for your supreme and dangerous hypocrisy. If you profess the sanctity of straight marriage and family values, while denying marriage or civil union rights to gays and lesbians at the same time that you yourself are “shtupping” a man or woman who isn’t your husband or wife, then you should be open to outing.
Your other examples don’t really jive with the Mark Kirk case. In this case, you believe Mark Kirk’s private life should be exposed simply because he didn’t support the “correct” position in your view. Apparently everyone who is gay must all think the same way about every issue. This is what drives me nuts about liberals, they are shocked and appalled when someone they think should fall into line doesn’t quite agree. A black conservative? Let’s blast him as an Uncle Tom.
“If you are going to get on the religious right, family values mountain top and shout your beliefs to everyone, you better be living that life.” Because you support those positions when that IS the case?
So based on your rationale I can assume you supported prosecuting and impeaching President Clinton for perjury and an affair with an intern, because it was hypocrital to the vows he took at marriage?
Oh, and so glad to see your posts go way beyond DADT.
MadCity – you’ve used a whole lot more words, but they still say the same thing: different rules apply to someone whose position you don’t like. Right to privacy…but only if you are on your side of the issue. You can be religious…but only if you life a perfect life.
Let me add a couple: You have a right to free speech, but only if you say things I agree with. Innocent until proven guilty, but if you’re a murder and really bad guy we just lock you up & throw away the key.
Just like I’m a Catholic, I guess that means I support priests molesting altar boys. Kirk is a Republican voted in by his constituents, his constituency is what matters in this issue. Of course, liberals obviously don’t believe in that -> healthcare <- they believe they know what's best.
Civil rights are not an issue of “politics” or “political correctness” any more than slavery or the amoral ban on interracial marriage among other things were.
This is an issue of human rights, and while I still don’t support outing people like this, I think it’s sad to see the outright immoral anti-freedom anti-equality attacks on freedom and justice against people that are not heterosexual presented as a simple political disagreement. This is akin to saying women shouldn’t leave the home.
Being politically correct is calling the anti-freedom movement a political disagreement. Throwing political correctness to the side on the issue is addressing the anti-freedom movement as the dehumanizing malicious campaign of misinformation and ill intent that it is, bigotry masquerading as “values” or “morality.”
Oh, and so glad to see your posts go way beyond DADT.
So he’s got an issue he’s passionate about; what’s the problem with that?
Nothing at all, but he claims his posts are more than just about DADT, when clearly evidence points to the contrary.
MCM has written 139 entries for blogging blue, and looking at his 10 most recent, I count 4 that have nothing to do with DADT. Click on his name in the “Posted by….” line and you’ll see for yourself.
What’s more, the repeal of DADT is a hot topic right now, so I can’t fault him for writing about it. If he kept beating that horse long past the time that it was relevant, then I’d probably see your point.
So there’s at least a 50-50 chance his posts will be about DADT. That’s fine I guess. You know what another hot topic is? The oil spill. I can only imagine the daily haranguing I’d see on here about the oil spill if Bush were the President. I’m sure I’d see post after post of acussations of how Bush and Cheney were standing up for their oil buddies, yadda, yadda, yadda.
How 4/10 gets to 50%, I don’t know.
This is the typical creative accounting that the right is known for. At a minimum you should say it is 40% over the past 10 postings. As Jake states, I’ve posted 139 times on Blogging Blue. If you look at the total 139, you’ll see that I’ve covered topics like Paul Ryan’s voting record, the social media performance of Democratic vs. Republican candidates, statistics on crime and other issues, transportation, South Carolina politics, etc.
I think what it boils down to Forgot, is that you are a homophobe and are threatened by this continued coverage of what is a hot political topic of the moment.
Furthermore, if you don’t like the postings on a particular topic, you don’t have to read them.
That’s the thing about your posts that bother me. I don’t care if you tend to focus on one topic more than others – as you say, if somebody doesn’t care about the topic, don’t read it. It’s the inflamatory over the top stuff that frustrates me. There was no reason to call forgot a homophobe – that’s just garbage.
Overall, though I frequently disagree, I continue to read your posts because you often make good points which make me consider something I hadn’t thought of. But I wish you would work on your tone. I can always tell your posts (talking specifically about posting of “articles” now not comments) from Zach’s without ever looking at the the name. He writes in a more objective, even-handed “here read this link” voice. As opposed to yours which are typically over the top and…well…on the raving side. One approach generates discussion. The other, arguments – if there are comments at all.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments and feedback. I appreciate them. We each have our own writing style and slant, it’s what makes for a more interesting site. If I rave as you put it, it is because the topic makes me mad as hell. I’ll try to be a bit more objective, but given the lunacy on the right it will be hard to do so without some degree of pointed “raving”.
Locke, everyone has a different style, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. MCM writes about things he’s very passionate about, and that passion comes across in his writing.
There are issues that I’m sure if I spent more time writing about I’d be far more passionate in my writing style.
Not sure who Jake is, but Zach actually said 6/10 (“looking at his 10 most recent, I count 4 that have nothing to do with DADT”), but I only saw 5. But that’s neither here nor there. My point is that more often that not this is your topic of choice (the other being pointing out supposed right wing hypocrisy), while other “hot topics” are completely ignored. It was merely an observation and nothing more than that.
But typically liberal, when you don’t like an argument or can’t refute it, you resort to name-calling, labels, and personal attacks. I am hardly “threatened” by your choice of topic. In fact I have stated repeatedly I basically agree with on the issue. If you are going to put yourself in a public forum you have to expect some honest criticism. But call me what you wish, any labels you throw on me have no effect whatsoever.
forgot, I can go back and take a look at all 139 of MCM’s posts, but I already know that there will be an almost 50/50 mix of posts that have nothing to do with DADT.
Hi Zach (my apologies on the Jake, in my hurry and fury….)
I didn’t do a complete content analysis, but I quickly looked at the 141 posts that I’ve generated on Blogging Blue. Here’s what I found: 8 dealt with DADT or 5.67% of the total.
6/1 – 2
5/28 – 1
5/21 – 1
2/23 -1
2/8 – 1
2/2 – 1
10/1 -1
It is possible that I missed a few in my quick analysis, but not 62 postings on DADT that would be needed to get me up to the 50/50 mix.
The confusion, could be that I have posted on other topics related to the GLBT community that have had nothing to do with DADT – VA discrimination laws, Marriage laws, RI funeral rights, etc.
Have a great weekend.
So what? I think civil rights and fighting the anti-freedom dehumanizing bigoted movement that masquerades shamefully under the banner of being “pro-family” is important too. It’s kind of easy to be passionate when you’re dealing with people that literally want to destroy the livelihood of others.
That doesn’t mean other issues aren’t important too of course, but the core issues of equality and fighting against bigoted movements are pretty far up there for me. The oil spill is tragic and there are other issues to discuss as well, but eliminating institutionalized bigotry is pretty far up on my list of why I do not vote Republican.